特別節目·中文精讀

羅希特·普拉薩德:亞馬遜 Alexa 與對話式 AI

Rohit Prasad: Amazon Alexa and Conversational AI

Alexa 首席科學家談語音助手的演進歷程、對話式 AI 的技術難點與未來互動形態。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

2013 年 4 月,羅希特·普拉薩德(Rohit Prasad)加入亞馬遜做語音識別時,團隊開第一次會,10 個人,其中 9 個人認為遠場語音識別做不出來。

他們準備去找管理層談,說換個題做吧,比如電話客服的語音識別,那是當年這個領域的主戰場。10 個人裡唯一眼睛發亮的是羅希特自己。

他後來在訪談裡說了一句輕描淡寫的話:做語音識別的人找了幾十年的殺手級應用,眼前這個可能就是。

那一年,讓一個放在房間角落的裝置,隔著 20 英尺,在有人放音樂、小孩在跑、媽媽在打電話的環境裡準確識別你在叫它幹什麼,學術界的主流判斷是:無解。

這件事後來變成了 Echo,變成了 Alexa,變成了今天幾千萬個家庭裡的那個聲音。從那個 9 個人說做不到的房間,到今天這句話,中間隔著五年。

關於 Alexa 該長什麼樣

萊克斯·弗裡德曼(Lex Fridman)開場問了一個很文藝的問題。電影《她》(Her)裡,一個人愛上了 AI 的聲音。這種連線,光靠聲音能不能達到?

羅希特沒有討論能不能。他先改了討論的框架。

他說,我們老在討論“像人”(human-like),但還有另一個維度被忽略了,就是“超人”(superhuman)。人類只能出現在一個地方,一次只能在一個位置。Alexa 可以在你的手機上、家裡、辦公室同時出現。人類的記憶有限,Alexa 的記憶接近無限而且精準。這些能力你用“像人”這把尺子量不出來。

在他看來,只討論“像人”是把問題拉低了。

這個框架在整場訪談裡反覆出現。每次萊克斯想把話題拉回“AI 像不像人”,羅希特都會把它推回“AI 該不該像人,什麼時候該像,什麼時候不該”。

他舉了個很日常的例子。你走過房間想開燈,說一句“開燈”。這時候 Alexa 就該執行,不該跟你聊天。如果它非得以一個像人的方式回應你,那是一種退步。但如果對面是社交機器人,你要的就是像人的對話。

這不是人跟人的互動,這是人跟機器的互動。有些場合需要人性,有些場合需要機器性。(羅希特·普拉薩德)

後面聊到“Alexa 要不要有身體”時,他把這個判斷又說了一遍。他說,與其糾結 Alexa 的身體長什麼樣,不如看它現在已經在什麼裡面了:微波爐、汽車、牙刷、燈泡、第三方機器人。Alexa 不是一個物理助手,它是一個虛擬助手,超人類的地方恰恰在於它同時在很多地方。

“從這個意義上說,我其實不覺得具體的身體重要。”

這是對具身智慧主流敘事的一個溫和的反駁。他的判斷是:形態不是關鍵,能力才是。有些場景像人是必要的,有些場景像人反而是低估了這個 AI。

對話能力就是智慧本身

萊克斯問,怎麼定義智慧?圖靈測試有很多批評,你怎麼看?

羅希特的回答沒有繞彎:“對話能力是終極智慧的標誌,這一點毫無疑問。”

然後他拆了一層。人類有感測器,感測器是資料收集機制,大腦做決策,這是感知、推理、行動的迴圈。機器也有這一套。但機器在另外幾個維度遠超人類:計算、記憶、檢索的精準度。人類說不清“那天我到底見的誰”,機器不會。

所以在他的定義裡,智慧不是“像人”,是“感知、推理、行動”這一整套能力的組合。有些維度人類更強,有些維度機器更強。

他把這個推到極端:如果這些維度機器都在超過人類,我們討論的就不是“達到人類水平”,可能是“超越人類水平”。

聊到遊戲和自動駕駛時,他說了一句我覺得很關鍵的話。AlphaGo 下圍棋、自動駕駛開車,這些都需要大量資料驅動的智慧,但它們的難度不如跟人對話。原因很具體:遊戲裡終點是定義的,狀態是清楚的。對話裡,終點沒定義,你也不知道自己

處在什麼狀態。你甚至連自己想要什麼,都可能在中途改主意。

他舉了規劃週末的例子。你本來想去看某場演出,查到一半發現另一場更想去,於是改目的地。你本來只是想問附近有什麼電影,問完之後決定順便吃個飯。這中間有幾步、每步會怎麼變,事先都算不出來。

“這種維度上的可能性,讓這個問題極其嚇人。我認為它是智慧的終極測試。”

Alexa Prize:20 分鐘,5 到 10 年

2016 年起,亞馬遜辦了一個比賽,叫 Alexa Prize。規則說起來一句話:讓大學生造一個社交機器人,能跟你連貫、有趣地聊滿 20 分鐘。

“極其困難的挑戰。跟一個剛認識的人,或者認識很久的人,就任何話題聊 20 分鐘,而且話題還在不斷演變,這超級難。”

到訪談時已經辦完兩屆。第一屆冠軍是華盛頓大學,第二屆是加州大學的一個團隊。第三屆有十支隊伍在跑。

評判機制設計得挺講究。整個賽程分多個階段,前面的階段在受控環境裡做,請演員來跟機器人對話,三個評委裡要有兩個認可“這段對話成立了”,20 分鐘這道硬門檻就是在這裡測的。

到了決賽,評判權交給真實使用者。所有 Alexa 使用者都能用,說一句“Alexa, let's chat”,系統會明確告訴你現在在跟一個參加比賽的社交機器人對話。聊完之後問你一個問題:1 到 5 分,你有多願意再跟它聊一次。

使用者中途退出本身也是一個訊號。他退出的那個時間點,就標出了你在哪一步讓人受不了。

萊克斯拿 DARPA 自動駕駛挑戰賽做類比。第一屆沒車跑完全程,第二屆有幾輛跑完了沙漠。Alexa Prize 進度如何?

羅希特的回答很實在:距離 20 分鐘連貫且有吸引力的對話,還有 5 到 10 年。但進步幅度很大。生成回覆的準確度在提升,更明顯的是幽默感開始出現了。

他說幽默是很高的門檻,不是耍寶,是真正的幽默感,這本身就是智慧的標誌,而且極難做。這些機器人現在開始摸索:什麼時候該插一句合適的玩笑,遇到不認識的領域怎麼把話接下去讓對話不中斷。

還有一層更微妙的能力。你和我聊 AI,我們都是內行,能聊。但如果話題突然切到我完全不懂的地方,怎麼把對話轉出去?社交機器人開始處理這類問題了。

他說這背後有一部分是被 20 分鐘的賽制逼出來的。為了聊滿時間,參賽隊學會了一些聰明的辦法,包括在某些時候“遮掩”自己其實不懂的事實。

為什麼只開放給大學

萊克斯問了個有點尖銳的問題:這些對話裡,有人推邊界嗎?有人說髒話嗎?有人靠爭論來把對話往下拖嗎?

羅希特先說,比賽有敏感詞過濾,不只是關鍵詞,還考慮上下文。因為這些裝置是家用裝置,家裡有小孩,護欄必須多。

然後他講了辦這個比賽的真實動機,這段我覺得是整場訪談裡資訊量最高的部分之一。

那幾年,學術界做對話 AI 的人大量流向工業界,學生畢業就走,教授也有出走的。工業界手上有三樣學術界拿不到的東西:海量資料、大規模算力、以及用真實使用者驗證進展的通道。三條缺一條,研究就做不深。

Alexa Prize 就是把這三樣東西打包開放給大學。副作用是它變成了一個使用者真在用的技能,成了技能商店裡使用量最高的技能之一。

他解釋為什麼只給大學:先給學術界留一塊能安心發明的地,同時讓學生有動力留下來,而不是一畢業就全跑進工業界。

這些機器人現在到底在幹什麼

萊克斯問了個技術問題:要贏這個比賽,需要什麼?

羅希特的回答把現在的社交機器人給定性了:它們大部分時候還在做檢索,不在做推理。

他舉了個體育的例子。對話在聊最近的比賽,裡面涉及大量上下文,你必須理解被提到的那些實體之間的關係,對話才連貫。如果你只是丟擲一個關於某個球員的趣聞,而不是真的理解他昨晚那場球打得怎麼樣,這段對話就談不上智慧。

“很多時候它是在檢索一個事實,給出一個差不多接近的答案,但不是真的答案。這就是研究必須往前走的地方:真正的理解和推理。”

順著這個,他還潑了一盆冷水給想做監督學習的人。有研究者習慣的思路是:先有一個高質量標註語料,然後在上面跑演算法。他說,在 Alexa Prize 這個世界裡,這條路走不通。

這不是一篇 ACL 論文,也不是 NSF 資助的研究,你手上有一份漂亮的語料。這裡是真實世界,你有真實資料。(羅希特·普拉薩德)

所以他要求參賽者換腦子:從真實反饋裡學習。使用者評分是反饋,使用者中途退出是反饋,使用者糾正你是反饋。沒有標註集,最佳化目標本身都還在討論中。

給 AI 一雙眼睛

訪談裡引了一句羅希特說過的話:讓智慧助手真正變聰明的唯一辦法,是給它眼睛,讓它去探索世界。

他說這話被斷章取義了,但意思他認。

人類的感官能力很多,學習方式很複雜,也從來不是唯一的一種模式:給你灌一大堆文字和音訊,你就學會了。人是在經驗裡學,在觀察裡學,被人教著學。人類學習的效率極高,機器恰恰相反,尤其是這類對話系統,學習效率極低。

他說下一波研究的重點會落在“更少資料”上。他強調這不是說資料量要變少,我們產生的資料多得是,重點是學得更快。具體路徑是弱監督、無監督、遷移學習,把一個領域的知識搬到另一個領域,把一種語言的能力搬到另一種語言。

而在這種學習方式裡,其他感官就變得關鍵了。人是在大量噪音資料裡學會東西的,這一點不該改。該改的是學習機制本身。

怎麼讓人一聽就知道這是 Alexa

聊到個性時,萊克斯提了一個很具體的問題:閉上眼聽,憑什麼判斷這是 Alexa?

羅希特的回答把“聲音”這件事拆開了。美國的 Alexa、英國的、印度的、澳洲的都不一樣,雖然都在說英語。你換一個文化、換一個社群,你認的是什麼?

他說這不是配音演員的問題。用詞的選擇、語氣的屬性、語速、怎麼發音、解釋的時候囉嗦還是簡潔,全都是識別度的一部分。

不只是聽起來像。用詞、語調、語速、你怎麼發音、用詞是簡潔還是冗長,全是因素。(羅希特·普拉薩德)

這背後有個產品上的兩難,他自己說得很清楚。你要給一百萬人造一個統一的個性,能測,能最佳化,能保證體驗的下限。你越個性化,就越難測,越難知道它是不是好體驗。

他的答案是:把控制權給使用者。

他舉了幾個已經上線的例子。一個是“Remember This”,你主動說“Alexa,記住某某事”,它就存下來。他自己存了整輛車的引數,因為查起來太麻煩;存了所有航空公司的常旅客號碼,因為要用的時候總找不到。這是顯式控制,使用者知道自己授權了什麼。

再一個是聲紋識別。你告訴 Alexa 你是這家裡的誰,它就能做針對你的個性化。系統在發生個性化動作時會明確告知,不偷偷來。

第三個是服務商選擇。你說“放一首 Sting”,到底從 Spotify 放還是 Amazon Music 放,是你在 App 裡設的。

信任的門檻比對人類還高

萊克斯提了個很有心理學的觀察。人跟人之間最深的關係裡,是有摩擦、有張力、有拉扯的。這種東西要不要放進人機互動裡?

羅希特的回答只用了兩個字:信任。

他說,摩擦、張力在人與人的關係裡可以是健康的,但在這個場景裡不可談判的是信任。而且他認為,使用者對 AI 的信任門檻,比對人類還高。

門檻高在哪?不只是隱私和資料。是你每天的動作。你今天理解我理解得準不準,你執行得穩不穩。他打了個比方:你打客服電話,網路出了問題,對面那個人聽不懂你在說什麼,你立刻就失去信任,不想再跟這個人說話了。這個例子放到人機互動上,要放大十倍。

還有一層更彆扭的。使用者對 AI 的預期是搖擺的:你期待它很聰明,它一旦笨了你就生氣;你期待它沒那麼聰明,它一旦表現得像在耍小聰明,你也生氣。兩頭都能冒犯人。

他說這是研究人員和使用者身份之間的拉扯。作為研究者,他偶爾會煩:為什麼對這些系統的要求這麼苛刻?作為使用者,他立刻回答自己:就該這麼苛刻。

燈亮著,和貓毛衣

隱私這一段,羅希特講了兩個原則:透明,和控制。

透明落到具體設計上。做第一代 Echo 時,他們做了一個判斷:什麼時候音訊被送到雲上,必須有明確的物理指示。所以你說出喚醒詞,燈環亮起,才開始傳輸。裝置上有物理靜音鍵,按下去麥克風直接斷電。

控制落到使用上。你可以在 App 裡看到自己被錄下的每一條語句,隨時刪。後來做得更省事:直接說“Alexa,刪掉我今天說的話”。

再後來加了一個開關:如果你不想讓人工審閱你的資料,可以標記,標了之後你的資料不會進入人工標註流程。這條是針對監督學習必須有人標註這件事來的。

然後萊克斯問那個所有人都想問的問題:Alexa 在聽嗎?

“Alexa 只在裝置上監聽喚醒詞。”

喚醒詞是 Alexa、Amazon、Echo、Computer 裡選一個,一次只能選一個,裝置只聽那一個。

至於那個流傳極廣的都市傳說:聊到貓毛衣,轉頭亞馬遜就給你推貓毛衣。他的解釋平淡得有點掃興:那可能是冬天到了,大家都在搜毛衣,所以它就成了熱門。我們人類沒那麼獨特,你的需求也沒那麼獨特。

然後萊克斯提了一個跟主流輿論相反的觀點,我覺得值得單獨拎出來。他說作為機器學習從業者,他希望有一天使用者可以主動選擇“一直聽”,因為只要控制權和信任在手,資料越多,裝置能為你做的事就越多。讓他不安的是人們對資料的敏感程度,相對於這些資料能給生活帶來的改善,這個比例失衡了。

羅希特的回應很剋制。他說社會整體確實在變得更能接受資料共享帶來的好處,但不是所有人都這樣,不能一刀切,必須尊重不接受的人。

他給了兩個已經存在的例子。一個是 follow-up mode,開啟之後 Alexa 說完話會再開一次麥克風,等你說下一句。你在往購物清單里加東西,說“雞蛋”“牛奶”“麵包”,不用每樣都喊一次喚醒詞。另一個是 Alexa Guard,你出門時開啟,它開始監聽特定聲音事件,比如煙霧報警器響了、有人打碎玻璃。回家之後關掉。

兩個例子都是同一個結構:用顯式授權換取高價值能力。

2013 年那間屋子裡沒有資料

回到技術史。羅希特說一切從“Working Backwards”開始,這是亞馬遜的一個方法論:先寫新聞稿,寫這個產品釋出那天你想讓世界讀到什麼,再倒推要做哪些事。靈感來源是《星際迷航》裡的那臺電腦。願景定得很高,但釋出必須有起點。

第一個要解的是遠場語音識別。當年這不是常規做法,他此前所在的研究圈子裡,這事被判定為不可解。

然後是喚醒詞檢測,這一關的難度外人不太容易體會。Alexa 這個詞很常見,音素構成跟“I like you”“Alex”這類詞高度重疊。裝置在房間裡只聽喚醒詞,家裡同時有一堆話在說。你要區分的不只是“有沒有說出 Alexa”,而是“這句話是不是在對裝置說”。

他說“I love my Alexa”“I hate my Alexa”,這兩句裡都有 Alexa,但都不該喚醒裝置。

萊克斯順勢開了個玩笑:那這期播客裡我們會說幾百次 Alexa,聽眾該怎麼辦?羅希特的回答是,可能會醒幾次。他們做過反制技術,包括類似水印的方式識別廣告和媒體音訊。這是個尚未徹底解決的問題,但他們很在意。

再往後是大詞彙量連續語音識別。這一關的難點不在於演算法,在於場景:音訊不是從貼著嘴的手持麥克風來的,是從 20 英尺外來的,中間有兒子在放音樂,女兒在跑來跑去問媽媽事情。

2013 年 4 月他加入時,神經網路在語音識別上剛露出一點苗頭,還很早期。團隊當時是個創業狀態,沒上來就押深度學習。他們做的第一件事是搞資料:要訓練遠場模型,先得有遠場資料,而遠場資料在世界上不存在,因為還沒有使用者。

他們想辦法造出了第一批遠場訓練資料。資料到手之後,開始往深度學習上壓。分散式訓練是他們最早的成果之一,讓訓練時間隨資料量線性增長,這樣資料翻倍,訓練時間不至於爆炸。

結果他給了一個具體數字:從專案啟動到拿到那批資料之後的六個月內,錯誤率降了 5 倍。“到那個點,我有信心這事能成。”

2014 年 11 月釋出。他說了一句很重的話:

我們在這個產品上只有一次機會。如果 2014 年 11 月釋出時它低於那條線,我認為這個品類根本不會存在。(羅希特·普拉薩德)

這條線的位置,他沒法從既有經驗裡推出來,因為沒人做過。團隊只能在準確率和體驗上先立幾個標杆,然後想辦法在沒有使用者的情況下衡量自己離標杆有多遠。

規則系統還是統計系統

語音識別之後是多領域自然語言理解。單個窄領域做意圖理解,當年是可行的。但音樂、資訊查詢、鬧鐘、計時器、家居控制一起上,難度是另一個量級。而且還是在沒有使用者的情況下。

當時行業主流是用規則寫語法模板去匹配意圖。他們選了統計優先的路子:語言理解、槽位和實體識別、內部意圖分類器,都是統計模型。

但羅希特補了一句很誠實的工程細節:統計模型會出 bug,所以他們同時建了確定性匹配模組專門修這些 bug。純統計不行,純規則也不行,最後是統計打底、規則兜底。

實體消歧的例子他講得很生動。你說“放 The Stones 的歌”,如果系統對這個樂隊不熟,可能匹配到 Rolling Stones,也可能匹配到 Stone Temple Pilots。你怎麼知道是哪個?這在當年是個熱門難題。

他的處理方式是承認這件事可以靠對話解決。目標是九成以上一次命中,剩下的可以問。“就像人一樣,我沒聽懂你剛才說什麼,問一句,這沒問題。”

釋出時鋪了十幾個大領域。到訪談時,Alexa 上有 9 萬多個技能。

把對話流的編寫工作拿掉

2019 年 re:Invent 上他們釋出了一個東西叫 Alexa Conversations。要解決的問題很具體:過去給 Alexa 寫多輪對話,開發者得把整個對話流全部手寫出來,如果使用者說這個就做那個,跟那種老式電話 IVR 系統一個路子。開發者體驗很差,能做出的對話也很僵硬。

新的做法是:你提供幾段示例互動資料,說明使用者會怎麼用你的 API,然後系統用一個在示例資料上訓練的迴圈神經網路自動構建對話流。開發者不用寫對話程式碼。

但更值得說的是它解鎖了什麼能力。萊克斯問“附近有什麼電影”,這句話背後可能有好幾種意圖:想買票、只是好奇、想確認某部片子還在不在映。系統不知道你的真實目標是什麼。

羅希特把這條鏈路走了一遍。你買了電影票,四個人的。那接下來系統推一件事:要不要訂附近餐廳?而且不用再問你一遍“幾點”“幾個人”。四個人這個資訊已經隱含在購票會話裡了,直接帶過去。

他管這叫把認知負擔從使用者身上轉移到機器身上:系統去猜你的潛在目標,然後執行最合理的下一步,而不是讓你把需求一條條說全。

至於長期記憶,他承認還在早期。現在的記憶主要在一段會話內部,跨會話的長期記憶(比如你偏好哪家餐廳)還是開放問題。

你每次糾正它,都是一條訓練訊號

萊克斯在這裡插了一段私人抱怨,很有意思。他說自己每天干一樣的事,穿一樣的黑襯衫,所以 Alexa 每次聽不懂某首歌、每次都要他糾正,特別煩。具體是《Stairway to Heaven》,每次放的都不是 Led Zeppelin 原版,是個翻唱。

羅希特當場說:這是個正式 bug report,我記下了,我們會修。

然後他順勢講了自學習。Alexa 現在能自動收集上百萬條語句,沒有人工監督。機制是行為訊號:你點了錯的那首歌,或者你說“不對,不是這首”,或者你重說了一遍,這些動作都在告訴系統它剛才做錯了。如果某首歌被請求卻播成了另一首,這個失敗模式就能被捕捉。大量這類糾正現在是自動消化的,不需要人去看。

他自己就是受害者兼測試用例。印度口音導致 M 和 N 經常被混淆,對人來說都容易聽錯,對機器更是。系統在一點點學會糾正。

萊克斯提了一個產品細節:糾正完之後,使用者希望得到一句確認,知道自己這一下起了作用。羅希特說這是光譜,有人喜歡被確認,有人會被這種確認煩到。他拿特斯拉車主做對比:很多 Autopilot 使用者覺得自己在教系統,還挺興奮。Alexa 使用者裡也有一部分這麼想。

他的判斷是,可教學的 AI(teachable AI)在助手這個賽道上會越來越重要。而且他強調,上面說的自學習是徹底無監督的,沒有人參與標註,只靠使用者行為。

從 9 萬個技能裡挑一個

“更自然”這條線上,除了語音合成用神經網路做得更像人,還有一個更麻煩的問題:9 萬個技能,使用者憑什麼記住名字?

過去的互動是“Alexa,讓 XX 技能告訴我某某事”。這個動作本身就是不自然的,因為你在用 App 的心智模型套語音。語音世界裡沒有“開啟一個應用”這回事,它應該是一個連續的介面。

他們的做法是建一個深度學習能力:你說“幫我叫輛車”,系統先篩出一批候選技能,判斷這大機率是打車類,再根據你的偏好對各個技能的響應排序,選最好的那個回給你。

另一個例子是列表。你不用一句一句加:“Alexa,加雞蛋”“Alexa,加牛奶”“Alexa,加餅乾”。一句話“加餅乾、牛奶和雞蛋”就行。

再一個是記憶的統一。有些事你是透過日曆記的,有些是你讓 Alexa 記住的,有些是提醒。使用者不該關心它存在哪。你只要問“我什麼時候去我媽家”,它就該從任何一個來源裡把答案撈出來。

萊克斯追問了一句:這個整合的責任歸誰?技能開發者還是 Alexa 平臺?

羅希特的回答是兩邊都要。技能本身的質量由平臺工具保證。但“當請求不夠具體時,判斷哪個技能能完成使用者意圖”這件事,明確是平臺的責任。多米諾披薩做了自己的技能,使用者說“開啟多米諾”能用,但使用者說“幫我訂個披薩”,就得靠平臺來路由。

而再往上,那個“訂個披薩”的背後可能是一個完整的場景:孩子在家,晚上要吃飯。到這一步,就是對話式 AI 真正的戰場了。

最難的那一層:推理

羅希特把當下的挑戰分成幾層。

第一層是基本功。一次命中的事務型請求必須做到近乎完美。他說得很直接:就算我能幫你安排好一整晚的行程,但如果你讓我開個燈我開不了,你作為使用者是無法接受的。

第二層是推理。根據已有資訊和歷史,判斷使用者的潛在目標,決定下一步最優動作。他把它跟自動駕駛做類比,都是推理和決策問題。區別在於自動駕駛的環境雖然難,終點相對有限;對話裡的假設空間要龐大得多。

第三層是主動。現在討論的都是反應式決策,你問,它答。如果加上主動,Alexa 會自己產生“預感”(hunches):你出門忘了關車庫燈,它提醒你。到這一步,它在任何一個時間點都要基於手上的資訊判斷該不該做一件事。

萊克斯問了個他很關心的方向:什麼時候 Alexa 能“看”你,從你的表情判斷你在不在沮喪,從而修正自己的判斷?

羅希特的回答把難度擺了出來。沮喪這個訊號理論上可以從聲音裡拿,因為你一旦開始重說,系統就知道大概出錯了。但真正做情感識別,是在遠場、嘈雜、有距離的環境裡做,這是情感計算領域公認的硬骨頭。“非常非常難的問題。”

然後是那個更大的問題:深度學習夠不夠?

他的回答分兩半。一半是:不夠,推理必須做起來。他點了幾個正在成形的方向:更少資料、零樣本、單樣本、主動學習、遷移學習。深度學習已經證明有用,現在要把它跟遷移學習、主動學習配起來。但下一波真正的躍遷要靠推理。

另一半是:短期內還不必絕望。為了把客戶服務好,預測式方法還有大量空間沒挖完,遠沒到用盡的時候。他區分得很清楚:把事辦成,短期內預測式方法夠用;做出他真正想要的那種高質量體驗,推理必須補上。

他把推理稱為這些難題裡最難的一個,因為假設空間太大。而一旦跨出單次會話,比如你希望 Alexa 記住你喜歡哪家餐廳、下次規劃晚上出門時問你要不要去同一家,問題的規模就再上一個量級。

五年和四十年

萊克斯請他用“新聞稿倒推”的方法,寫一份五年後和四十年後的 Alexa。

五年。他說五年這個尺度是他敢想的極限,因為五年前他自己也想不到 Alexa 會是今天這樣。

五年的判斷是:目標導向的對話和開放域的閒聊,這條界線會消失。

他用購物來論證。買電池、買紙巾,一句話就完。買相機呢?你要做大量研究,看評測,比引數,最後才決策。所以“幫我找臺相機”這句話,到底是目標導向還是開放探索?分不清。

他順手把萊克斯自己的購物習慣點了出來。萊克斯承認,他從沒在 Alexa 上買過一件此前沒在電腦上買過的東西,全靠復購。羅希特的回應是:即便是一個看起來目標明確的事,空間也很大。產品屬性太多,你要看站內評價,要看站外評價,要看消費者論壇怎麼說。

再看“這個週末鱈魚角天氣怎麼樣”。你為什麼問這個?背後一定有個目的,可能是要去,可能在猶豫要不要去。

所以他的定義是:怎麼用最少的步驟幫客戶完成目標。這麼定義之後,目標導向和開放域的區分自然就沒了。

“我可能想知道總統辯論發生了什麼,我是在找資訊,還是在判斷誰在贏?這些都是很難的問題。”五年內他希望能解掉。

四十年。他說得更乾脆:四十年也解不完。

即便我們把範圍限死在人類智慧,我們離它還很遠。從感知到神經處理,大腦怎麼儲存資訊、怎麼處理資訊,我們連知識該怎麼表徵都還不知道。(羅希特·普拉薩德)

他給了一條已經發生過的座標。五年前,問天氣、復購、聽喜歡的歌,用嘴說出來這件事已經變得自然了,你不會覺得拿起手機更順手。這是第一段轉變,已經完成。

下一段是:用 Alexa 規劃週末、規劃下一頓飯、規劃下一次晚上出門,毫不費力。這一段就是他認為的五年目標。

他說五年前差點離開這個領域

訪談最後,萊克斯把鏡頭拉到最大:一群猿的後代,造出了一個能跟人對話的系統,放在自己家裡。你站在這個系統的中心,什麼感覺?

羅希特先說了“特權”這個詞。然後他說了一段我覺得整場訪談裡最真誠的話。

他在這個領域待了很多年,在劍橋。五年前他幾乎想走,因為找不到那個殺手級應用,找不到一個使用者會真愛、而不只是“有了也不錯”的東西。研究實驗室裡做出來的東西,一直落不了地。

現在看到幾百萬、上億人在用,他說這很讓人滿足。而且這還很早期,他還有二十年可以幹自己愛乾的事。

他跟每一個新加入團隊的人說同一句話:這是難得的特權。2014 年釋出 Alexa 是第一次,後來開放 Alexa Skills Kit,把語音和語言的 SDK 第一次真正做出來,他管這個叫 AI 的民主化。

現在他和萊克斯能坐在這裡討論“用智慧體規劃一個晚上”,而不是說“不可能”,本身就已經說明位置變了。

“我不覺得還有更好的地方可以待著了。”

回到開頭那間會議室。10 個人,9 個說做不到,1 個眼睛發亮。六個月後錯誤率降了 5 倍,那條“魔法線”被摸到了。如果他那天也舉手說換個題做,今天這個品類可能確實不存在。

這類判斷在當時都沒法證明。你只能在事後回頭看,看那個少數派當時看見的東西是什麼。羅希特看見的是一件事的用途,而不是它的難度。

如果要從這場訪談裡拿走點什麼

  • 評估一個 AI 產品時,把“像人”和“超人”分開打分。在需要速度和準確的地方追求像人,往往是退步;在需要共情和陪伴的地方,超人能力沒有意義。
  • 判斷一個對話系統行不行,別隻看它答對了沒有,看它被糾正之後有沒有變化。行為訊號(重說、打斷、中途退出)比評分更有資訊量,而且是零標註成本。
  • 做多輪對話產品時,先問自己一個問題:這一步的認知負擔在誰身上。如果使用者在反覆提供同樣的事實(幾個人、幾點、在哪),就說明系統該做上下文傳遞了。
  • 設計帶麥克風或攝像頭的常駐裝置,把透明和控制做成物理可見的東西,而不是寫進隱私政策裡。指示燈、物理斷電、一句話刪除,成本極低,缺了就補不回來。
  • 給團隊定目標時試試倒推:先寫產品釋出那天你希望媒體怎麼報道,再倒推需要哪些能力、哪條線必須先跨過去。羅希特說這個方法連他手下的科學家都愛上了,因為它逼你先把結論寫出來,再去找證據。
  • 評估一個技術方向時,區分兩件事:這件事能不能把活幹成,和這件事能不能做出你真正想要的體驗。前者預測式方法常常夠用,後者往往必須等下一次正規化躍遷。別用前者的進展去掩蓋後者的欠賬。
文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
[00:00:00] The following is a conversation with Roy Prasad, he's the vice president, head scientist of Amazon, Alexa, and one of its original creators, Hilux likes team, embodies some of the most challenging, incredible, impactful and inspiring work that is done in A.I. today. The team has to both solve problems at the cutting edge of natural language processing and provide a trustworthy, secure and enjoyable experience to millions of people. This is where state of the art methods and computer science meet the challenges of real world engineering. [00:00:33] In many ways, Alexa and the other voice assistants are the voices of artificial intelligence to millions of people and an introduction to A.I.. For people who have only encountered it in science fiction, this is an important and exciting opportunity. And so the work that Roett and Alexa team are doing is an inspiration to me and to many researchers and engineers in the AI community. This is the Artificial Intelligence Podcast. If you enjoy it, subscribe on YouTube. Give five stars an Apple podcast supported on Patreon or simply connected me on Twitter. [00:01:09] Allex Friedman spelled F.R. Idi Amin. If you leave our view on Apple podcast especially, but also cast box comment on YouTube, consider mentioning topics, people, ideas, questions, quotes in science, tech or philosophy find interesting and I'll read them on this podcast. I won't call it names, but I love comments with kindness and thoughtfulness in them, so I thought I'd share them. [00:01:35] Someone on YouTube highlighted a quote from the conversation with Ray Dalio where he said, You have to appreciate all the different ways that people can be a players. [00:01:45] This connected me to and teams of engineers. It's easy to think that raw productivity is the measure of excellence, but there are others. I work with people who brought a smile to my face every time I got to work in the morning. Their contribution to the team is immeasurable. I recently started doing podcast ads at the end of the introduction. I'll do one or two minutes after introducing the episode and never any ads in the middle that break the flow of the conversation. [00:02:11] I hope that works for you. It doesn't hurt the listening experience. The show is presented by Kashyap, the number one finance app in the App Store. I personally use cash app to send money to friends, but you can also use it to buy, sell and deposit bitcoin. Just seconds. Cash Up also has a new investing feature. You can buy fractions of a stock, say one dollar's worth no matter what the stock price is. Brokerage services are provided by cash up investing, a subsidiary of Square and then by SIPC. [00:02:42] I'm excited to be working with cash out to support one of my favorite organizations called First Best known for their first robotics and Lego competitions. They educate and inspire hundreds of thousands of students in over 110 countries and have a perfect rating on Charity Navigator, which means that donated money is used to maximum effectiveness. You get cash from the App Store or Google Play and Use Code Leks podcast. You get ten dollars and cash. Apple also donate ten dollars. The first, which again is an organization that I've personally seen, inspire girls and boys to dream of engineering by the world. [00:03:22] This podcast is also supported by ZIP recruiter, hiring great people is hard and to me is one of the most important elements of a successful mission driven team. I've been fortunate to be a part of and lead several great engineering teams. The hiring I've done in the past was mostly the tools we built ourselves. But reinventing the wheel was painful. The recruiters, a tool that's already available for you. It seeks to make hiring simple, fast and smart. [00:03:50] For example, Corbel co-founder Gretchen Hebner used the recruiter to find a new game artist to join our education tech company by using zip recruiters screening questions to filter candidates. Gretchen found it easier to focus on the best candidates and finally, hiring the perfect person for the role. In less than two weeks from start to finish the recruiter, the smartest way to hire. She was a procurers effective for businesses of all sizes by signing up, as I did for free at Zipcar dotcom slash leks pod that Zipcar dot com slash lex pod. [00:04:29] And now here's my conversation with Rohit Prasad. In the movie her, I'm not sure if you ever seen a human falls in love with the voice of an AI system. Let's start at the highest philosophical level before we get to deep learning is some of the fun things. Do you think this is what the movie Hershel's is within our reach? I think not specifically about her, but I think what we are seeing is a massive increase in adoption of assistance or I and all parts of our social fabric. [00:05:23] And I think it's what I do believe is that the utility these guys provide. Some of the functionalities that are shown are absolutely within reach. So the some of the functionality in terms of the interactive elements, but in terms of the deep connection, that's purely voice based, do you think such a close connection is possible with voice alone? [00:05:50] It's been a while since I saw her, but I would say in terms of the in terms of interactions which are both human like and in these systems, you have to value what is also superhuman. We as humans can be in only one place, existence can be in multiple places at the same time, one with you on your mobile device, one at your home, one at work. So you have to respect these superhuman capabilities to. Plus, as humans, we have certain attributes, we are very good at very good at reasoning assistance, not out there, but into the realm of A.I. assistance, what they're great at as computation memory is infinite and pure. [00:06:33] These are the attributes you have to start respecting. So I think the comparison with human like versus the other aspect, which is also super human, has to be taken into consideration. So I think we need to elevate the discussion to not just human like. [00:06:46] So there's certainly elements where you just mentioned Alexi's Everywhere computation speaking. So this is a much bigger infrastructure than just the thing that sits there in the room with you. But it certainly feels to us mere humans that there's just another little. Creature there, when you're interacting with the you're not interacting with the entirety of the infrastructure, you're interacting with the device, the feeling is, OK, sure, we anthropomorphize things, but that feeling is still there. So what do you think we as humans, the purity of the interaction with the smart assistant, what do you think we look for in that interaction? [00:07:27] I think in the certain interactions, I think will be very much where it does feel like a human because it has a person of its own. And in certain ones, it wouldn't be so, I think a simple example. Think of it as if you're walking through the house and you just want to turn on your lights on and off and you're issuing a command that's not very much like a human like interaction. And that's where I shouldn't come back and have a conversation with you. [00:07:52] Just it should simply complete that command. So does I think the blend of we have to think about this is not human human alone. It is a human machine interaction. And certain aspects of humans are needed and certain aspects and situations demanded to be like a machine. [00:08:08] So I told you it's going to be philosophical in parts. What was the difference between human and machine in that interaction? When we interact to humans, especially those of friends and loved ones versus you and a machine that you also are close with? [00:08:27] I think the you have to think about the roles the eye plays right to, and it differs from different customer to customer, different situation to situation especially. I can speak from a Lexus perspective. It is a companion, a friend at times an assistant and an adviser down the line. So I think most eyes will have this kind of attributes and it will be very situational in nature. So where does the boundary? I think the boundary depends on exact context in which you are interacting with. [00:08:55] They are. [00:08:56] So the depth and the richness of natural language conversation is been by Alan Turing, been used to try to define what it means to be intelligent. You know, there's a lot of criticism of that kind of test. But what do you think is a good test of intelligence, in your view, in the context of the Turing Test and Aleksa with the Alexa Prize, this whole realm, do you think about this human intelligence, what it means to define it, what it means to reach that level? [00:09:27] I do think the ability to converse is a sign of an ultimate intelligence. I think that there's no question about it. So if you think about all aspects of humans, there are sensors we have and those are basically a data collection mechanism and based on that, we make some decisions with our sensory brains. Right. And from that perspective, I think there are elements we have to talk about how we sense the world and then how we act based on what we sense. [00:09:57] Those elements clearly machines have. [00:10:00] But then there's the other aspects of computation that is way better. I also mentioned about memory, again, in terms of being near infinite, depending on the storage capacity you have, and the retrieval can be extremely fast and pure in terms of like there's no ambiguity of who did I see when machines can remember that quite well. So it again, on a philosophical level, I do subscribe to the fact that two can be able to converse and as part of that, to be able to reason based on the word knowledge you've acquired and the sensory knowledge that is there is definitely very much the essence of intelligence. [00:10:40] But indulgence can go beyond human level intelligence based on what machines are getting capable of. [00:10:47] So what do you think maybe stepping outside of Alexa broadly as an A.I. field, what do you think is a good test of intelligence? Put it another way outside of Alexa, because so much of Alexa is a product, is an experience for the customer and the research side. What would impress the heck out of you if you saw, you know, what is the test? We said, wow, this thing is now starting to encroach into the realm of what we loosely think of as human intelligence. [00:11:17] So well, we think of it as ajai and human intelligence all together. All right. So in some sense, and I think we are quite far from that, I think an unbiased view I have is that the Alexi's intelligence capability is a great test. I think of it as there are many other proof points, like self-driving cars. Game playing like go or chess. Let's take those two for, as an example, clearly requires a lot of data driven learning and intelligence, but it's not as hard a problem as conversing with as an eye is with humans to accomplish certain tasks or open domain chat, as you mentioned, a surprise in those settings. [00:12:03] The key difference is that the end goal is not defined. Unlike game playing. You also do not know exactly what state you are in in a particular goal completion scenario. And so sometimes you can if it is a simple goal. But if you're even certain examples like planning a weekend are, you can imagine how many things change along the way. You look for whether you may change your mind and you change the destination or you want to catch a particular event and then you decide, no, I want this other event I want to go to. [00:12:37] So these dimensions of how many different steps are possible when you're conversing as a human with a machine makes it an extremely daunting problem. And I think it is the ultimate test for intelligence. [00:12:49] And don't you think the natural language is enough to prove that conversation? [00:12:56] A conversation from a scientific standpoint, natural language is a great test. But I would go beyond I don't want to limit it to as natural language, as simply understanding an intent or passing for entities and so forth. We are really talking about dialogue and dialogue. So so I would say human machine dialogue is definitely one of the best tests of intelligence. [00:13:20] So can you briefly speak to the surprise of people who are not familiar with it and also just maybe where things stand? And what have you learned and what's surprising? What have you seen the surprising from this incredible competition? [00:13:35] Absolutely. It's a very exciting competition. Aleksa Prize is essentially a grand challenge and conversational artificial intelligence where we threw the gauntlet to the universities who do active research in the field to say, can you build what we call a social bot that can converse with you coherently and engagingly for 20 minutes? That is an extremely hard challenge. Talking to someone who you're meeting for the first time or even if you're you've met them quite often to speak at twenty minutes on any topic and evolving nature of topics is super hard. [00:14:14] We have completed two successful years of the competition. The first was one with the history of Washington, the second University of California. We are in our third instance. We have an extremely strong team of ten cohorts. And the third instance of the of the Alexa is underway now. And we are seeing a constant evolution, first year was definitely a learning, it was a lot of things to be put together. We had to build a lot of infrastructure to enable these universities to be able to build magical experiences and and do high quality research. [00:14:48] Just a few quick questions. Sorry for the interruption. What does failure look like in the 20 minute session? So what does it mean to fail, not to reach the 20 minute mile? [00:14:57] Awesome question. So there are one first of all, I forgot to mention one more detail. It's not just 20 minutes, but the quality of the conversation, too, that matters. And the beauty of this competition. Before I answer that question on what failure means is first that you actually converse with millions and millions of customers as these social bots. So during the judging phases, there are multiple phases before we get to the finals, which is a very controlled judging in a situation where we have we bring in judges and we have instructors who interact with these social bots. [00:15:31] That is a much more controlled setting. But to tell the point, we get to the finals, all the judging is essentially by the customers of Alexa. And there you basically rate on a simple question how good your experience was. So that's where we are not testing for a 20 minute boundary being crossed because you do want to be very much like a clear cut winner be chosen. And and it's an absolute bar. So did you really break that 20 minute barrier is why we have tested in a more controlled setting with actors, essentially, and tractors and see how the conversation goes. [00:16:08] So this is why it's a subtle. [00:16:10] Difference between how it's being tested in the field with real customers versus in the lab to award the prize, so on the latter one. What it means is that essentially the the there are three judges and two of them have to say this conversation has essentially got it. [00:16:30] And the judges are human experts, that judges are human experts. OK, great. So this in the third year. So what's been the evolution? How far from the DARPA challenge in the first year? The autonomous vehicles, nobody finished in the second year. A few more finished in the desert. So how far along in this? I would say a much harder challenge. [00:16:52] Are we? This challenge has come a long way to the extent that we're definitely not close to the 20 minute barrier being with coherence and engaging conversation, I think we are still five to 10 years away in that horizon to complete that. But the progress is immense. Like what you're finding is the accuracy and what kind of responses these social bots generate is getting better and better. What's even amazing to see that now there's humor coming in. The bots are quite awesome. [00:17:23] You know, you're talking about ultimate science of signs of intelligence. I think humor is a very high bar in terms of what it takes to create humor. And I don't mean just being goofy. I really mean good sense of humor is also a sign of intelligence in my mind and something very hard to do. [00:17:40] So these social bots are now exploring not only what we think of natural language abilities, but also personality attributes and aspects of when to inject an appropriate joke, when to when you don't know the question, the domain, how you come back with something more intelligible so that you can continue the conversation. [00:18:00] If if you and I are talking about A.I. and we are domain experts, we can speak to it. But if you suddenly switch a topic of that, I don't know of how do I change the conversation? So you're starting to notice these elements as well. [00:18:12] And that's coming from partly by by the nature of the 20 minute challenge that people are getting quite clever on how to really converse and essentially mask some of the understanding, the facts if they exist. [00:18:27] So some of this this is not Aleksa the product. This is somewhat for fun, for research, for innovation and so on. I have a question sort of in this modern era, there's a lot of if you look at Twitter and Facebook and so on, there's discourse, public discourse going on and some things that are a little bit too edgy. People get blocked and so on. I'm just out of curiosity, are people in this context pushing the limits? [00:18:53] Is anyone using the F word? Is anyone sort of pushing back sort of, you know, arguing, I guess I should say, as part of the dialogue to really draw people in? [00:19:05] First of all, let me just back up a bit in terms of why we're doing this. Right. So you said it's fun. I think fun is more part of the engaging part for customers. It is one of the most used skills as well in our skill store. [00:19:21] But Updatable are the real goal was essentially what was happening is had a lot of research moving to industry. We felt that academia has the risk of not being able to have the same resources at disposal that we have, which is lots of data, massive computing power and a clear ways to test these advances with real customer benefits. [00:19:45] So we brought all these three together in the Alexa Prize. That's why one of my favorite projects on Amazon. And with that, the secondary effect is, yes, it has become engaging for our customers as well. We're not there in terms of where we want to be. Right. But it's a huge progress. But coming back to your question on how do the conversations evolve? Yes, there are some natural attributes of what you said in terms of argument and some of what was wearing. [00:20:11] The way we take care of that is that there is a sensitive filter we have built there. So you words. And so it's more than key words, a little more in terms of, of course, the keyword based. But there's more in terms of how these words can be very contextual, as you can see. And also the topic can be something that you don't want a conversation to happen because this is a convenient device as well. A lot of people use these devices. [00:20:36] So we have a lot of guardrails for the conversation to be more useful for advancing A.I. and not so much of these these other issues you attribute to what's happening in the field as well. [00:20:50] Right. So this is actually a serious opportunity. I didn't use the right word fun. I think it's an open opportunity. Do some some of the best innovation in computational agents in the world. Absolutely. Why just universities? [00:21:06] Why just universities? Because as I said, I really felt like a young man. It's also tough if you think about the other aspect of where the whole industry is moving with the eye, there's a dearth of talent in given the demands. [00:21:22] So you do want universities to have a clear place where they can invent and research and not fall behind, but that they can motivate students. [00:21:31] Imagine all grad students left to industry like us or our faculty members, which has happened to. So this is a way that if you're so passionate about the field where you feel. Industry and academia need to work well. This is a great example and a great way for universities to participate. [00:21:52] So what do you think it takes to build a system that wins the surprise? [00:21:56] I think you have to start focusing on aspects of reasoning that it is there are still more look ups of what intense customers are asking for and responding to. [00:22:12] Those are rather than really reasoning about the elements of the of the conversation. For instance, if you have. If you're playing, if the conversation is about games and it's about the recent sports event, there's so much context involved and you have to understand the entities that are being mentioned so that the conversation is coherent rather than you suddenly just switched to knowing some facts about a sports entity. And you're just relaying that rather than understanding the true context of the game. [00:22:46] Like if you just said, I learned this fun fact about. Tom Brady, rather than really say how he played the game the previous night, then the conversation is not really that intelligent. [00:23:00] So you have to go to more reasoning elements of understanding the context of the dialogue and giving more appropriate responses, which tells you that we are still quite far because a lot of times it's more fact being looked after and something that's close enough as an answer, but not really the answer. So that is where the research needs to go more and actual true understanding and reasoning. And that's why I feel it's a great way to do it, because you have an engaged set of users working to make help. [00:23:33] These advances happen in this case. [00:23:35] You mentioned customers there quite a bit. And there's a skill. What is the experience for for the user that helping? So just to clarify, this isn't as far as I understand, the Alexa. So the skills are standalone for the surprise. I mean, is focused on the surprise. It's not you ordering certain things. And I was out there checking the weather or playing Spotify is a separate skill. Exactly. So you're focused on helping that? I don't know. [00:24:03] How how do people customers think of it? Are they having fun or are they helping teach the system? Was the experience like? I think it's both, actually. [00:24:12] Let me tell you how the how you invoke the skills. So all you have to say, Alexa, let's chat. And then the first time you say, Alexa, let's chat, it comes back with a clear message that you're interacting with one of those three social bots. And there's a clear so you know exactly how you interact. And that is why it's very transparent. You are being asked to help write. And and we have a lot of mechanisms where as the we are in the first phase of feedback phase, then you send a lot of emails to our customers and then this. [00:24:45] They know that this the team needs a lot of interactions to improve the accuracy of the system. So we know we have a lot of customers who really want to help these industry bots and they are conversing with that. And some are just having fun with just seeing Alexa. Let's chat and also some adversarial behavior to see whether how much do you understand as a social bot. So I think we have a good, healthy mix of all three situations. [00:25:11] So what is the if we talk about solving the Alexa challenge, the word surprise was the data set of really engaging, pleasant conversations look like this? [00:25:24] If we think of this as a supervised learning problem, I don't know if it has to be, but if it does, maybe you can comment on that. Do you think there needs to be a data set of of what it means to be an engaging, successful, fulfilling? [00:25:39] I think that's part of the research question here. This is I think we at least got the first part right, which is how will we for universities to build and test in a real world setting. Now, you're asking in terms of the next phase of questions, which we are. We're also asking, by the way, what does success look like from a optimization function? [00:26:02] That's what you're asking in terms of we as researchers are used to having a great corpus of annotated data and then making then, you know, sort of do, you know, algorithms on those. [00:26:14] Right. And fortunately and unfortunately, in this world of Alexa Prize, that is not the way we are going after it. [00:26:22] So you have to focus more on learning based on life feedback. That is another element that's unique. [00:26:30] We're just not I started with giving you how you ingress and experience this capability as a customer. What happens when you're done? So they ask you a simple question on a scale of one to five, how how likely are you to interact with this social hierarchy that does a good feedback and customers can also leave more open ended feedback? And I think partly that to me is one part of the question you're asking, which I'm saying is a mental model shift that as researchers also you have to change your mindset that this is not a dhaba evaluation or NSF funded study and you have a nice corpus. [00:27:12] This is where it's real world. You have real data. [00:27:15] The scale is amazing. Is that a beautiful thing then? And then the customer, the user can quit the conversation and he talks to the user. [00:27:24] That is also a signal for how good you were at that point. [00:27:29] So and then on a scale one to five, one to three, do they say how likely are you or is it just a binary I want to five one to five. [00:27:37] Oh, OK. That's such a beautifully constructed challenge. [00:27:39] OK, you said the. Only way to make a smart assistant really smart is to give it eyes and let it explore the world. [00:27:51] I'm not sure it might have been taken out of context, but can you comment on that? Can you elaborate on that idea is I personally also find the idea super exciting from a social robotics person, robotics perspective. [00:28:03] Yeah, a lot of things do get taken out of context by this particular one was just as philosophical discussion we were having on terms of what does intelligence look like? And the context was in terms of learning, I think just we said we as humans are empowered with many different sensory abilities. Yeah, I do believe that eyes are an important aspect of it in terms of if you think about how we as humans learn. It is quite complex and it's also not unique model that you are fed a ton of text or audio and you just learn that we know you are you learn by experience, you learn by seeing you're taught by humans. [00:28:47] And we are very efficient in how we learn. Machines, on the contrary, are very inefficient on how they learn, especially these guys. I think the next wave of research is going to be with less data, not just less humans, not just with less labelled data, but also with a lot of weak supervision and where you can increase the learning rate. [00:29:12] I don't mean less data in terms of not having a lot of data to learn from that. We are generating so much data. But it is more about from an aspect of how fast can you learn? [00:29:21] Mm hmm. So improving the quality of the data, that's the quality of data and the learning process. [00:29:27] I think more on the learning process. I think we have to we as humans learn with a lot of noisy data. Right. And and I think that's the part that I don't think should change. [00:29:38] What should change is how we learn. Right. So if you look at you mentioned supervised learning, we have making transformative shifts from moving to more unsupervised, more weak supervision. Those are the key aspects of how to learn. [00:29:52] And I think in that setting, you I hope you agree with me that having other senses is very crucial in terms of how you learn. [00:30:00] So. Absolutely. And from a from a machine learning perspective, which I hope will get a chance to talk to a few aspects that are fascinating there. But to stick on the point, a sort of a body, you know, embodiment. So Alexa has a body, has a very minimalistic, beautiful interface or there's a ring and so on. I mean, I'm not sure of all the flavors of the devices that Alexa lives on, but there's a minimalistic basic interface. [00:30:28] Uh. And nevertheless, we humans so have a Roomba, I have all kinds of robots all over everywhere. So what do you think? [00:30:39] The of the future looks like if it begins to shift what his body looks like, what, what maybe beyond the Aleksa, what do you think of the different devices in the home as they start to embody their intelligence more and more? What you think that looks like philosophically a future? What do you think that look? [00:30:58] I think let's look at what's happening today. You mentioned, I think, other devices as an Amazon devices when I also wanted to point out Alexa is already integrated, a lot of third party devices, which also come in lots of forms and shapes, some in robots. Right. Some and microwaves, some in appliances that you use in everyday life. So I think it is it's not just the shape Alexa takes in terms of form factors, but it's also where all its available and it's getting in cars, it's getting in different appliances and homes, even toothbrushes. [00:31:35] Right. So I think you have to think about it as not a physical assistant. It will be in some environment. [00:31:45] As you said, we already have these nice devices. But I think it's also important to think of it. It is a virtual assistant. It is superhuman in the sense that it is in multiple places at the same time. So I think the the actual embodiment in some sense to me doesn't matter. [00:32:04] I think you have to think of it as not as human like and more of what its capabilities are that derive a lot of benefit for customers. And there are different ways to delight and delight customers and different experiences. And I think I am a big fan of not being just human, like it should be human, like in certain situations. Alexa Social bought in terms of conversation is a great way to look at it. But there are other scenarios where human like I think is underselling the abilities of this A.I. So if I could trivialize what we're talking about. [00:32:43] So if you look at the way Steve Jobs thought about the interaction with the device that Apple produced, there was an extreme focus on controlling the experience by making sure there's only this Apple produced devices. You see the voice of Alexa being taking all kinds of forms depending on what the customers want. And that means that means it could be anywhere from the microwave to a vacuum cleaner to the home and so on. The voice is the essential element of the interaction. [00:33:14] I think voice is an essence. It's not all, but it's a key aspect, I think, to your question in terms of you should be able to recognize Alexa. And that's a huge problem, I think, in terms of a huge scientific problem, I should say, like what are the traits, what makes it look like Alexa, especially in different settings and especially if it's primarily voice what it is. [00:33:37] But Alexa is not just voice either, right? I mean, we have devices with the screen now. You're seeing just other behaviors of Alexa. So I think they're in very early stages of what that means. And this will be an important topic for the following years. But I do believe that being able to recognize and tell when it's Alexa versus it's not is going to be important from an Alexa perspective. I'm not speaking for the entire community, but from but I think attribution. [00:34:06] And as we go into more understanding who did what, that identity of the A.I. is crucial in the coming world. [00:34:15] I think from the broader community perspective, it's also a fascinating problem. So basically, if I close my eyes and listen to the voice, what would it take for me to recognize that this is Alexa or at least the Alexa that I've come to know from my personal experience in my home and through my interactions that. [00:34:32] Yeah, and the Alexa here in the US is very different. The election UK and the election in India, even though they are all speaking English or the Australian version. So again, we're so now think about when you go into a different culture, a different community, but you travel there, what do you recognise? [00:34:49] I think these are super hard questions, actually. [00:34:52] So there's a there's a team that works on personality. So we talk about those different flavors of what it means, culturally speaking, in the UK, US. What does it mean to add to the problem that we just stated? It is fascinating. How do we make it purely recognisable that it's Alexa, assuming that the qualities of the voice are not sufficient, it's also the content of what is being said. How do how do we do that? How does the personality come into play? [00:35:22] What's what's that recission would look like? [00:35:24] And it's such a fascinating interview of some very fascinating folks who from both the UX background and human factors, are looking at these aspects and these exact questions. But I will definitely say it's not just how it sounds. [00:35:39] The choice of words, the tone, not just I mean, the voice identity of, but the tone matters, the speed matters, how you speak, how you enunciate words, how what choice of words are you using, how terse or you are, how lendee in your explanations you are. [00:35:57] All of these are factors. And you also you mentioned something crucial that it may have you may have personalized it to some extent in your homes or in the devices you are interacting with. So you as your individual, how you prefer Aleksa sounds can be different than how I prefer. And we may. And the amount of customer visibility you want to give is also a key debate we always have. But I do want to point out it's more than the voice actor that recorded and it sounds like that actor. [00:36:31] It is more about the choices of words, the attributes of tonality, the volume in terms of how you raise your pitch and so forth. All of that matters. [00:36:41] This is such a fascinating problem from a product perspective. I could see those debates just happening inside of the Aleksa team of how much personalization do you do for the specific customer because you're taking a risk if you over personalize because you don't if you create a personality for a million people, you can test that better. You can create a rich, fulfilling experience that will do well. But the more you personalize it, the less you can test it, the less you can know that it's a great experience. [00:37:13] So how much personalization? What's the right balance? [00:37:16] I think the right balance depends on the customer. Give them the control. So I'd say I think the more control you give customers, the better it is for everyone. [00:37:26] And I'll give you some key personalization features. I think we have a feature called Remember This, which is where you can tell Alexa to remember something. There you have an explicit. Sort of controlling customer's hand because they have to say, Alexa, remember, what kind of things would that be used for? So you get song title or something? I have stored my entire specs for my car because it's so hard to go and find and see what it is. [00:37:53] Right. When you're having some issues that I store my mileage plan a numbers for all the frequent flyer ones where I'm sometimes just looking at it and it's not handy. So and so. Those are my own personal choices I've made for Alexa to remember something on my behalf. Right. So again, I think the choice was be explicit about how you provide that to a customer as a control. [00:38:17] So I think these are the aspects of what you do like think about. [00:38:22] Where we can use speaker recognition capabilities, that it's if you. Taught Alexa that you are lax and the person in your household is person to, then you can personalize the experiences. Again, these are very in the in the customer experience patterns are very clear about and transparent when a personalization action is happening. And then you have other ways, like you go through explicit control right now through your app, that your multiple service providers, let's say for music, which one is your preferred one? [00:38:56] So when you say play sting, depend on your whether you have Spotify or Amazon music or Apple music, that the decision is made, where to play it from. [00:39:06] So what's Alexis's backstory from her perspective, this is there. I remember just asking, as probably a lot of us are, just the basic questions about love and so on. Aleksa, just to see what the answer would be, just as it feels like there's a little bit of a back, like there's a this feels like there's a little bit of personality, but not too much. Is Aleksa have a metaphysical presence in this human universe we live in, or is this something more ambiguous? [00:39:41] Is there a past? Is there a birth? Is there a family kind of idea, even for joking purposes and so on? [00:39:48] I think well, it does tell you if I think you should double check this, but as you said, when were you born? I think we do respond. I need to double check that, but I'm pretty positive about it. [00:39:58] I think that you do, because I think I have to assume that. [00:40:01] But that's like that's like how like I was I was born in your brand of champagne and whatever the year the thing. [00:40:08] Yeah. [00:40:08] So in terms of the metaphysical, I think it's early. [00:40:12] Does it have the historic knowledge about herself to be able to do that? Maybe. Have we crossed that boundary. Not yet. Right. In terms of being. Thank you. Have you thought about it? Quite a bit. But I wouldn't say that we have come to a clear decision in terms of what it should look like. But you can imagine, though, and I bring this back to the prize social board one there, you will start seeing some of that. [00:40:38] Like you, these bots have their identity. And in terms of that, you may find, you know, this is such a great research topic that some academia team may think of these problems and start solving them, too. [00:40:52] So let me ask a question. It's kind of difficult, I think, but it feels fascinating to me because I'm fascinated with psychology. It feels that the more personality you have, the more dangerous it is in terms of a customer perspective product. [00:41:11] If you want to create a product that's useful but dangerous, I mean, creating an experience that upsets me. [00:41:19] And so what? How do you get that right? Because if you look at the the relationships, maybe I'm just a screwed up Russian. [00:41:29] But if you look at the human to human relations that some of our deepest relationships have fights, have tension, have the push and pull, have a little flavor in them. Do you want to have such flavor in an interaction with Alexa, how do you think about that? So there's one other common thing that you didn't see, but we think of it as paramount for any deep relationship. That's trust. Trust. So I think if you trust every attribute, you said a fight, some tension is are healthy, but the water's sort of unnegotiable in this instance is trust. [00:42:08] And I think the bar to own customer trust for A.I. is very high in some sense, more than a human. It's it's not just about personal information or your data. [00:42:20] It's also about your actions on a daily basis. How trustworthy are you in terms of consistency, in terms of how accurate are you in understanding me? Like if if you're talking to a person on the phone, if you have a problem with your, let's say, your Internet or something, if the person's not understanding, you lose trust right away. You don't want to talk to that person. That whole example gets amplified by a factor of 10, because as when you're a human interacting with an eye, you have a certain expectation. [00:42:48] Either you expect it to be very intelligent and then you get upset. Why is it behaving this way or you expect it to be not so intelligent? And when it surprises you, you're like, really, you're trying to be too smart. So I think we grapple with these hard questions as well. But I think the key is actions need to be trustworthy from these eyes, not just about data protection, your personal information protection, but also from how accurately it accomplishes all commands or all interactions worth Tufty here, because trust is absolutely right. [00:43:21] But trust is such a high bar with their systems, because people see this because I work with autonomous vehicles. I mean, the bar this place than our system is unreasonably high. [00:43:32] Yeah, that is going to be a I agree with you. I think of it as its challenge. It's a challenge and it's also keeps my job right. So so from that perspective, I totally I think of it at both sides as a customer and as a researcher. I think as a researcher, yes. Occasionally it will frustrate me that why is the bar so high for these guys? And as a customer then I say, absolutely, it has to be that high. [00:43:59] Right. So I think that's the tradeoff we have to balance, but doesn't change the fundamentals. That trust has to be owned. And the question then becomes is, are we holding the eyes to a different bar inaccuracy and mistakes than we hold humans? That's going to be a great societal questions for years to come, I think, for us. [00:44:18] Well, one of the questions that we grapple as a society now that I think about a lot I think a lot of people now I think about a lot. [00:44:25] And Alexis taking on head on is privacy is the reality is us giving over data to any system can be used to enrich our lives in profound ways. [00:44:43] If basically any product that does anything awesome for you with the more data has, the more awesome things it can do. And yet on the other side, people imagine the worst case possible scenario of what can you possibly do with that data people? It's boils down to trust. As you said before, there is a fundamental distrust of certain groups of governments and so on, depending on the government, depending on who is in power, depending on all these kinds of factors. [00:45:12] And so here's the luks in the middle of all of it in the home, trying to do good things for the customers. So how do you think about privacy in this context? The smart assistants in the home, how do you maintain Huddy earn trust? [00:45:25] Absolutely. So as you said, trust is the key here. So you start with trust and then privacy is a key aspect of it. [00:45:34] It has to be designed from the very beginning about that. And we believe in two fundamental principles. One is transparency and second is control. So by transparency, I mean when we build what is now called smart speaker or the first Eckle. [00:45:51] We were quite judicious about making these right trade offs on customer's behalf, that it is pretty clear when when the audio is being sent to cloud, the lightering comes on when it has heard you say the word wakeford and then the streaming happens. Right. And the light rain comes up. We also had reports of physical mute button on it. Just so if you didn't want to be listening even for the week, would then you turn the power button and the mute button on and that disables the microphones. [00:46:22] That's just the first decision on essentially transparency and control over. Then even when we launched, we gave the control in the hands of the customers that you can go and look at any of your individual utterances that is recorded and delete them any time. And we've got to be true to that promise. Right. So and that is super. Again, a great instance of showing how you have the control. [00:46:46] Then we made it even easier. [00:46:47] You can say, Alexa, delete what I said today. So that is now making it even just just more control in your hands with what's most convenient about this technology is what you deleted with your voice. [00:47:01] So these are the types of decisions we continually make. We just recently launched a feature called What We Think of it as if you wanted humans not to review your data because you mentioned supervised learning. Right. So are you. And supervised learning humans have to give some annotation. And that also is now a feature where you can essentially, if you've selected that flag, your data will not be reviewed by humans. So these are the types of controls that we have to constantly offer with customers. [00:47:35] So why do you think it bothers people so much that so so everything you just said is really powerful of the control, the ability to lead because we collect we have studies here running at MIT to collect huge amounts of data and people consent and so on. The ability to delete that data is really empowering and almost nobody ever asked to delete it. [00:47:57] But the ability to have that control is really powerful. [00:48:01] But still, you know, there's this popular anecdotal anecdotal evidence that people say they like to tell that they're going to find. We're talking about something I don't know, sweaters for cats. And all of a sudden they'll have advertisements for cat sweaters on Amazon. There's that that's a popular anecdote, as if something is always listening. What can you explain that anecdote, that experience that people have with the psychology of that? What's that experience? And can you you've answered it. [00:48:32] But let me just ask, is Alexa listening? [00:48:35] Know Alexa listens only for the week word on the device. Right. And the way forward is the words like Alexa, Amazon, Echo and you. But you only choose one at a time, so you choose one. And it listens only for that on our devices. So that's first, from a listening perspective, you have to be very clear that it's just the way forward. So you said, why is this Enzyte? If you mean it's because there's a lot of confusion. [00:49:01] It really listens to. Right. And I think it's partly on us to keep educating our customers and the general media more in terms of like how what really happens. And we have a lot of it and we are pages on information are clear, but still people have to have more. [00:49:21] There's always a hunger for information and clarity and we'll constantly look at how best to communicate. If you go back and read everything, yes, it states exactly that. And then people could still question it. And I think that's absolutely OK to question what we have to make sure is that we are, because our fundamental philosophy is customer first. [00:49:42] Customer obsession is our leadership principle. If you put as researchers, I put myself in the shoes of the customer and all decisions and Amazon are made with that and and trust has to be owned and we have to keep earning the trust of our customers in the setting. And to your other point on like, is there something showing up based on your conversations? No, I think the answer is like you, a lot of times when those experiences happen, you have to also know that, OK, maybe a winter season, people are looking for sweaters. [00:50:13] Right. And it shows up on your Amazon.com because it is popular. [00:50:16] So there are many of these you mentioned that personality or personalization turns or we are not that unique either. Yeah, right. So those things we we as humans start thinking, oh, must be because something was heard and that's why this other thing showed up. The answer is no. Probably it is just the season for sweaters. [00:50:38] I'm not going to ask you this question because it's also because people have so much paranoia of mine. Let me just say from my perspective, I hope there's a day when a customer can ask Alexa to listen all the time to improve the experience, to improve, because I personally don't see the negative, because if you have the control and if you have the trust, there's no reason why I shouldn't be listening all the time to the conversations to learn more about you, because ultimately. [00:51:08] As long as you have control and trust, every data you provide to the device that the device wants is going to be useful. [00:51:18] And so to me, I as a machine learning person, I think it worries me how sensitive people are about their data. Relative to how? Empowering it could be for the devices around them, enriching it could be for their own life to improve the product. [00:51:42] So I just it's something I think about sort of a lot, how to make their devices obviously works and thinks about it a lot as well. I don't know if you want to comment on that. [00:51:51] Sort of. Have you seen them in the form of a question like have you seen an evolution in the way people think about their private data in the previous several years? So as we as a society get more and more comfortable to the benefits we get by sharing more data. First, let me answer that part and then I'll want to go back to the other aspect you were mentioning. So as a society on a general, we are getting more comfortable as a society. [00:52:20] Doesn't mean that everyone is. And I think we have to respect that. I don't think one size fits all is always going to be the answer for all right by definition. So I think that is something to keep in mind in these. Going back to your on what more magical experiences can be launched in these kind of settings? [00:52:43] I think, again, if you give the control, we it's possible certain parts of it. [00:52:49] So we have a feature called follow up mode where you if you turn it on and Alexa, after you've spoken to it, will open the mics again, thinking you will answer something again. [00:53:01] Like if you're adding this to your shopping item right on a shopping list or To-Do list, you're not done you want to keep. So in that setting, it's awesome that it opens the mic for you to say eggs and milk and then bread. Right. So these are the kind of things which you can empower. So and then another feature we have, which is called Alexa Guard. I said it only listens for the week. All right. But if you have let's say you're going to say, let's you leave your home and you want Alexa to listen for a couple of sound events, like smoke alarm going off or someone breaking your glass. [00:53:36] Right. So it's like just to keep your peace of mind so you can see Alexa on guard or away or and then it can be listening for these sound events. [00:53:46] And when you're home, you come out of that mode. Right. So this is another one where you, again, give controls in the hands of the user or the customer and to enable some experience that is high utility and maybe even more delightful in the certain settings, like follow up mode and so forth. And again, the general principle is the same control in the hands of the Castro. [00:54:09] So I know we kind of started with a lot of philosophy and a lot of interesting topics, and we're just jumping all over the place. But really some of the fascinating things that the Al-Aqsa team and Amazon is doing is in the the algorithms, the data side, the technology, the deep learning, machine learning and and so on. [00:54:26] So can you give a brief history of Aleksa from the perspective of just innovation, the algorithms, the data of how how was born, how it came to be, how it's grown, where it is today? [00:54:39] Yeah, it start with Amazon. Everything starts with the customer. And we have a process called Working Backwards Aleksa and more specifically than the product Eckle. There was a working backwards document essentially that reflected what would be started with a very simple. [00:54:59] A vision statement, for instance, that morphed into a full fledged document along the way, changed into what all it can do right? You can, but the inspiration was the Star Trek computer. So when you think of it that way, you know, everything is possible. But when you launch a product, you have to start with someplace. And when I joined, we the product was already in conception and we started working on the Farfield speech recognition because that was the first thing to solve. [00:55:28] By that, we mean that you should be able to speak to the device from a distance. And in those days, that wasn't a common practice. And even in the previous research world I was in was considered an unsolvable problem then in terms of whether you can converse from a length. And here I am still talking with the first part of the problem, where you say get the attention of the device as in by saying what we call the weak word, which means the word Alexa has to be detected with a very high accuracy because it is a very common word. [00:56:02] It has sound units that make up with words like I like you or Alex. [00:56:06] Alex writes, It's a undoubtably hard problem to detect the right dimensions of Alexa's address to the device versus I like Alexa. [00:56:20] To pick up that signal when there's a lot of noise, not only noise of conversation in the house, you remember on the device, you're simply listening for the record, Alexa, and there's a lot of words being spoken in the House. How do you know it's Alexa? And directed at Alex, because I could say I love my Alex, I hate my Alex, I want to do this. And in all these three sentences I said, Alexa, I didn't want her to wake up. [00:56:47] Yeah. [00:56:48] So can I just pause and a second, what would be your advice that I should probably in the introduction of this conversation, give to people in terms of them turning off their Alexa device? If they're listening to this podcast conversation out loud, like what's the probability that an Alexa device will go off? Because we mentioned Alexa like a million times. [00:57:12] So it will we have done a lot of different things where we can figure out that there is the device, the speech is coming from a human versus over there also. I mean, in terms of like also it is think about ads. Ah, so we also launched a technology for watermarking kind of approaches in terms of filtering it out. But yes, if this kind of a podcast is happening, it's possible your device will wake up a few times. [00:57:41] OK, it's an unsolved problem, but it is definitely something we care very much about. [00:57:48] But the idea is, do you want to detect Alexa meant for the device? And if, first of all, just even hearing Alexa versus are like, yeah, something. I mean, that's a fascinating part. [00:57:58] So that was the first really that's the first of the world's best detector versus the world's best requa detector in the far field setting. Not like something where the phone is sitting on the table. This is like people have devices 40 feet away, like in my house or 20 feet away, and you still get an answer. [00:58:17] So that was the first part. The next is, OK, you're speaking to the device. Of course, you're going to issue many different requests, some maybe sample, some maybe extremely hard. But it's a large vocabulary speech recognition problem, essentially, where the audio is now not coming onto your phone or a handheld mic like this or a close talking mikes, but it's from 20 feet away where if you're in a busy household, your son maybe listening to music, your daughter maybe running around with something and asking your mom something and so forth. [00:58:50] Right. So this is like a common household setting where the words you're speaking to Alexa need to be recognized with very high accuracy. Yes. Right now we are still just in the recognition problem. We haven't yet gone to the understanding one. Right. [00:59:05] And if a person say once again, what year was this? Is this before neural networks began to start to seriously prove themselves in audio space? [00:59:17] Yeah, this is around. So I joined in 2013. In April. Right. So the early research on neural networks coming back and showing some promising results and speech recognition space had started happening, but it was very early. But we just now build on that on the very first thing we did when when I joined and we the team and remember, it was a very much of a start up environment, which is great about Amazon. And we down on deep, not deep learning right away. [00:59:48] And we we knew will have to improve accuracy fast. [00:59:53] And because of that, we worked on and the scale of data. Once you have a device like this, if it is successful, will improve big time, like you certainly have large volumes of data to learn from to make the customer experience better. So how do you scale deep learning? So we did are one of the first works and in training with distributed use and where the training time was, you know, was linear in terms of the amount of data. [01:00:21] So that was quite important work where it was algorithmic improvements as well as a lot of engineering improvements to be able to train on thousands and thousands of speech. And that was an important factor. [01:00:33] So if you asked me, like in back in 2013 and 2014 when we launched Echo, the combination of large scale data, deep learning progress near Infinite, we had available on YouTube to ask even then was all came together for us to be able to solve the Farfield speech recognition to the extent it could be useful to the customers. It's still not like I mean, it's not that we are perfect at recognizing speech, but we agreed at it in terms of the settings that are in homes. [01:01:05] Right. So and that was important even in the early stages. [01:01:08] The first or even a look back at that time, if I remember correctly, it was it seems like the task will be pretty daunting. [01:01:19] So like so we kind of take it for granted that it works now. Yes. Right. So let me like how for. So you measure startup. I wasn't familiar how big the team was. I kind of because I know there's a lot of really smart people working on it. And I was very, very large team. How big was the team, how likely were you to fail in the eyes of everyone else and ourselves and yourself? Like what? [01:01:45] I'll give you a very interesting anecdote on that when I joined the team. The speech recognition team was six people, my first meeting, and we had a few more people. It was 10 people. Nine out of 10 people thought it can't be done. Right. Who was the one? The one was me saying actually, I should say, and one was say my optimistic. Yeah. And the first and eighth were trying to convince let's go to the management and say, let's not work on this problem. [01:02:20] Let's work on some other problem, like either telephony speech for customer service calls and so forth. But this is the kind of belief you must have. And I had experience with Farfield speech recognition, and I my eyes lit up when I saw a problem like that saying, OK, we have been in speech recognition, always looking for that killer app. Yeah. And this was a killer use case to bring something delightful in the hands of customers. [01:02:46] You mentioned you the way you kind of think of it in the private way in the future, have a press release and affect you and you think backwards. That's right. [01:02:53] Did you have the team have the echo in mind? [01:02:58] So this Farfield speech recognition actually putting a thing in the home that works, that's able to interact with. Was that the press release was the way close? [01:03:06] I would say, in terms of the as I said, the vision was start a computer. Right. Or the inspiration. And from there, I can't divulge all the exact specifications. But one of the first things that. Was magical and Alexa was music. It brought me to back to music because my taste is still and when I was in undergrad, so I still listen to those songs and I it was too hard for me to be a music fan with a phone. [01:03:38] Right. So and I don't I hate things in my ear. So from that perspective, it was quite hard. And music was part of the at least the documents I've seen. [01:03:50] Right. So so from that perspective, I think. Yes. In terms of how far are we from the original version? I can't reveal that. But that's why I have a ton of fun at work, because every day we go in and thinking like these are the new set of challenges to solve. [01:04:06] That's a great way to do great engineering, as you think of the press release. I like that idea. Maybe we'll talk about it a bit later. Is a super nice way to have a focus. [01:04:16] I'll tell you this. You're a scientist and a lot of my scientists have adopted that. They they have now they love it as a process because it was very a scientist. You're trained to write great papers, but they are all after you've done the research or your program and your dissertation proposal is something that comes closest or a doctor proposal or a NSF proposal is the closest that comes to a press release. But that process is now ingrained in our scientists, which is like delightful for me to see. [01:04:48] You write the paper first, then make it happen. That's right. I mean, in fact, that's not the results. Or you leave the results section open. But you have a thesis about here's what I expect. Right. And here's what would change. [01:05:01] Yeah, right, so I think it is a great thing, it works for researchers as well. Yeah. The so far field recognition. Yeah. What was the big leap? What were the breakthroughs and what was that journey like that today? [01:05:15] Yeah, I think the as you said first, there was a lot of skepticism on whether Farfield speech recognition will ever work to be good enough. Right. And what we first did was got a lot of training data in a far field setting, and that was extremely hard to get because none of it existed. So how do you collect data in Farfield Cell? Right. With no customer base, no customer base. Right. So that was first innovation. [01:05:41] And once we had that, the next thing was, OK, you if you have the data first of all, we didn't talk about like what would magical mean in this kind of a setting? [01:05:52] What is good enough for customers? Right. That's always since you've never done this before, what would be magical? So so it wasn't just a research problem. We had to put some. In terms of accuracy and customer experience features some steaks on the ground saying here's where I think should it should get to. So you established a bar and then how do you measure progress toward it, given you have no customer right now? [01:06:18] So from that perspective, we went so first was the data without customers. Second was doubling down on deep learning as a way to learn. [01:06:29] And I can just tell you that the combination of the two caught our error rates by a factor of five from where we were when I started to within six months of having that data. We at that point and I got the conviction that this will work. Right. So because that was magical in terms of when it started working and that reached came close to the magic bar to the bar. [01:06:55] Right. That we felt would be. Where people will use it, that was critical because you really have one chance at this. If we had launched in November 2014 is when we launched and if it was below the bar, I don't think this category exists. If you don't meet the bar. [01:07:15] Yeah, and just having looked at voice based interactions, like in the car or earlier systems, it's a source of frustration for people. In fact, we use voice based interaction for collecting data on subjects to measure frustration. So as a training set for computer vision for face data, so we can get a data set of frustrated people. That's the best way to get frustrated people having them interact with a voice based system in the car. So so that bar, I imagine, is pretty high, both very high. [01:07:46] And we talked about how also errors are perceived from eyes versus errors by humans. But we are not done with the problems that ended up we had to solve together to. Do you want the next one? Yeah. [01:08:02] So the next one was what I think of as multi-tool main natural language understanding. It's very I wouldn't say easy, but it is during those days it's solving and understanding in one domain. [01:08:18] A narrow domain was doable. [01:08:22] But for these multiple domains, like music, like information, other kinds of household productivity alarms, timers, even though it wasn't as big as it is in terms of the number of skills Alexa has on the confusion, space has like grown by three orders of magnitude. [01:08:39] It was still daunting even those days. [01:08:41] And again, with no customer base yet huggin no customer base. So now you're looking at meaning, understanding and intent, understanding and taking actions on behalf of customers based on their requests. And that is the next hard problem. Even if you have gotten the words recognized, how do you make sense of them? In those days? [01:09:03] There was still a lot of emphasis on rule based systems for writing grammar patterns to understand the intent. But we had a statistical first approach even then where foreign language understanding we had and even those starting the user and entity recognizer and an internal classifier which was altering statistically. In fact, we had to build the deterministic matching as a follow up to fix bugs that statistical models have. Right. So it was just a different mindset where we focused on data driven statistical understanding wins. [01:09:39] In the end, if you have a huge dataset, yes, it is contingent on that. And that's why it came back to how do you get the data before customers? The fact that this is why data becomes crucial to get to that point, that you have the understanding system built in, built up and noticed that for you we were talking about human machine dialogue and even those early days, even it was very much transactional. [01:10:06] Do one thing, one short utterances and a great way. There was a lot of debate on how much should Alexa talk back in terms of if you misunderstood you or you said play songs by the Stones and let's say it doesn't know, you know, early days, knowledge can be sparse. Who were the Stones, right? I the Rolling Stones. Yeah, right. [01:10:28] So. Ah, and you don't want the match to be Stone Temple Pilots or Rolling Stones, right? So you don't know which one it is. So these kind of other signals to out there, we had great assets right from Amazon in terms of UX. [01:10:44] Like what is that. What kind of. Yeah. How do you solve that problem in terms of what we think of it as an entity resolution problem. Right. So which one is it. Right. I mean, the even if you figured out the Stones as an entity. Yeah. You have to resolve it too, whether it's the Stones or the temple violence or some other stones, maybe I misunderstood. Is the resolution the job of the algorithm or is the job of us communicating with the human to help there as well? [01:11:09] There is borth, right? It is. You want ninety percent or high 90s to be done without any further questioning or you x. Right. So but that is absolutely OK. Just like as humans we ask the question I don't understand you likes. Yeah, it's fine for Alexa to occasionally say I did not understand you. All right. And and that's an important way to learn. And we'll talk about where we have come, but more self-learning with these kind of feedback signals. [01:11:37] But in those days, just solving the ability of understanding the intent and resolving to an action, what action could we play? A political analyst or a particular song was super hot. [01:11:49] Again, the bar was high as far as we are talking about. Right. [01:11:52] So while we launched it in sort of thirteen big domains, I would say in terms of our thing, we think of it as putting the big skills behind like music is a massive one when we launched it and now we have 90000 plus skills on Alexa. [01:12:08] So what are the big skills? Can you just go over there? The only thing I use it for is music, weather and shopping. [01:12:16] So we think of it as music information. Right? There is a lot of information. Right. So when we launch, we don't have smart with an Xbox bottom. I mean, you connect your smart devices, you control them with voice. [01:12:30] If you haven't done it, it's worth it will change your learning on the lights, turning on your light to do anything that's connected and has a it's just like your favorite smart device for you. [01:12:40] They light light and now you have the spark plug with and you don't. We also have this echo plug, which is oh yeah, you can solve it and now you can turn that one on and off. [01:12:50] I use this conversation motivation and get right. You can check your status with the garage door and things like and we have gone to collect some more and more proactive and even have one has unchosen now that looks hunches like you left your light on or let's say you've gone to your bed and you left the garage light on so it will help you out in these settings. Right. So that smart devices. Right. Information, smart devices. He said music. [01:13:18] So I don't remember everything we heard from his neighbors were the big ones that was you know, the timers were very popular right away. Music also like you could play a song artist album, everything. And so that was like a clear win in terms of the customer experience. So that's again, this is language understanding now. Things have evolved to where we want Aleksa definitely to be more accurate, competent, trustworthy, based on how well it does these core things. [01:13:50] But we have evolved in many different dimensions. First is what I think of her doing more conversational for high utility, not just for Chac. Right. And they're at Remarque's This Year, which is our conference. We launched what is called Alexa Conversations that is providing the ability for developers to author multiton experiences on Alexa with no code. Essentially in terms of the dialog code. Initially it was like, you know, all these IVR systems you have to fully auteur. [01:14:22] If the customer says this, do that right. So the whole dialogue floor is how Notter and Alexa conversations the way it is that you just provide a sample interaction data with your service or API, let's say, or ACAM tickets that provides a service for buying movie tickets. You provide a few examples of how your customers will interact with your APIs, and then the dialog flow is automatically constructed using recurrent neural network trained on that data. So that simplifies their developer experience. [01:14:53] We just launched our preview for the developers to try this capability out. And then the second part of it, which shows even increased utility for customers, is you and I when we interact with Alexa or any customer. As I'm coming back to our initial part of the conversation, the goal is often unclear or unknown to the A.I. If I say, Alexa, what movies are playing nearby? Am I trying to just buy movie tickets? Am I actually even. [01:15:27] Do you think I'm looking for just movies for curiosity, whether The Avengers are still in theater or when maybe it's gone and maybe it will. Come on. I missed it, so I may watch it on Friday, which happened to me. So. So from that perspective, now you are looking into what is my goal? And let's say I now complete the movie ticket purchase. [01:15:50] Maybe I would like to get dinner nearby. So what is really the goal here? Is it night out or is it movies as in just go watch a movie? The answer is we don't know. So can Aleksa now figure you have the intelligence that I think this matter goal is really neat, or at least say to the customer, when you've completed the purchase of movie tickets from Adam Tickets or Fandango or Piki or anyone, then the next thing is, do you want to get to get over to the theater, right. [01:16:28] Or do you want to book a restaurant next to it and and then not ask the same information over and over again? [01:16:36] What time what how many people in your party. [01:16:40] Right. So so this is where you shift the cognitive burden from the customer to the where it's thinking of what is your it anticipates your goal and takes the next best action to complete it. Now that's the machine learning problem. But essentially the way we saw this first instance and we have a long way to go to make it scale to everything possible in the world. But at least for this situation, it is from at every instance, Alexa is making the determination whether it should stick with the experience with ATM tickets or offer or you based on what do you say, whether either you've completed the interaction or you said, no, get me an Uber now so it will shift context into another experience or skill on another service. [01:17:30] So that's a dynamic decision making that's making Alexa, you can say, more conversational for the benefit of the customer rather than simply complete transactions which are thought through you as a customer has fully specified what you want to be accomplished. It's accomplishing that. [01:17:48] So it's kind of as we do this with pedestrians intent modeling is predicting what your possible goals are and what's the most likely goal and then switching that depending on the things you say. [01:17:59] So my question is there it seems maybe it's a dumb question, but it would help a lot if Alexa remembered me. What I said previously. [01:18:10] Right. Is it is it trying to use some memory for the customer? [01:18:15] It is using a lot of memory within that. So right now, not so much in terms of, OK, which restaurant do you prefer right back. Those are more long term memory, but within the short term memory, within the session, it is remembering how many people really you. So if you served with BI for tickets, it has made an implicit assumption that you were going to have you need for at least four seats at a restaurant. Right. [01:18:39] So these are the kind of contexts preserving between these skills. But within that session, what are you asking the right question in terms of for it to be more and more useful? Yes, it has to have more long term memory. And that's also an open question. And again, these are still early days. [01:18:55] So for me, I mean, every is different. But, yeah, I'm definitely not representative of the general population in the sense that I do the same thing every day. [01:19:05] I get the same day I get do everything the same, the same thing where the same thing clearly this or the black shirt. So it's frustrating when Alexa doesn't get what I'm saying because I had to correct her every time the exact same way this has to do with certain songs like she doesn't know certain weird songs I like and doesn't know. I've complained to Spotify about this thought the head of our Spotify Stairway to Heaven. I have to correct it every time. [01:19:33] It really doesn't play Led Zeppelin correctly. It is a cover of Stairway to Heaven. So you should figure out you should send me your next time. It feels the need for you to send it to me will take care of it. OK, well, Led Zeppelin is one of my favorite bands that works for me, so I'm like shocked it doesn't work for you. This is an official bug report. [01:19:52] I'll put I'll put it. I'll make it public with it. We're going to fix the Stairway to Heaven anyway. But the point is, you know, I'm pretty boring and do the same things, but I'm sure most people do the same set of things. Do you see Alexa sort of utilizing that in the future for improving the experience? [01:20:09] Yes. And not only utilizing it's already doing some of it, we call it Alexa is becoming more self-learning. So Alexa is now auto collecting millions and millions of utterances in us without any human supervision involved. The way it does it is. Let's take an example of a particular song. Didn't work for you. What do you do next? You either played the wrong song and you said, Alexa, no, that's not the song I want. Or you say, Alexa, play that, you try it again. [01:20:42] And that is a signal to Alexa that she may have done something wrong. And from that perspective, we can learn. If there's that failure pattern or that action of song was played when Song B was requested. Yes. And it's very common with station names because planthopper you can have and be confused as an M and then you for a certain accent like mine, people confuse my NMM all the time. [01:21:11] And because I have an Indian accent there, confusable to humans, it is for Alexa to add in that part, but it starts correcting and we collect. We correct a lot of these automatically without a human looking at the failures. [01:21:29] So the one of the things that's for me missing in Alexa, I don't know if I'm representing a customer, but every time I correct it, it would be nice to know that that made a difference. Yes. I mean, like that sort of like I heard you like, OK, there are some acknowledgement of that. [01:21:50] We worked a lot with with Tesla. We study our power and so on. And a large amount of the customers, they use Tesla autopilot. They feel like they're always teaching the system. They're almost excited by the possibility that they're teaching. I don't know, Alexa. Customers generally think of it as their teaching to improve the system, I think. And that's a really powerful thing. [01:22:09] Again, I would say it's a spectrum. Some customers do think that way and some would be annoyed by Alexa acknowledging that. Ah, so there's again, no one you know, while there are certain patterns, not everyone is the same in this way. But we believe that again, customers helping Alexa is a tenet for us in terms of improving it. And more self learning is by again, this is like fully unsupervised, right. There is no human in the loop and no labelling happening. [01:22:40] And based on your actions as a customer, Alexa, become smarter again. [01:22:46] It's early days, but I think this whole area of teachable A.I. is going to get bigger and bigger in the whole space, especially in the assistance space. So that's the second part where I mentioned more conversational. This is more self learning. The third is more natural. And the way I think of more natural is we talked about how Alexa sounds. [01:23:10] And there are and we have done a lot of advances in our text to speech by using a neural network technology for it to sound very human, like the individual texture of the sound to the the timing, the tonality, the tone, everything. [01:23:26] I would think in terms of there's a lot of controls in each of the places for how I mean, the speed of the war is the prosthetic buttons, the the actual smoothness of how it sounds. All of those are factors. And we do a ton of listening tests to make sure that what naturalist's how it sounds should be very natural. How it understands requests is also very important. Like and in terms of like we have ninety five thousand skills and if we have imagine that and many of these skills, you have to remember the skill and say, Alexa, ask the tide scale to tell me X right. [01:24:07] Ah now if you are to remove the scale then that means the discovery and the interaction is unnatural and we are trying to solve that by what we think of as again this was you don't have to have the app metaphor here. [01:24:23] These are not individual apps, right. Even though they're so you you're not sort of opening one at a time and interacting. So it should be seamless because it's voice and it's voice. You have to be able to understand these requests independent of the specificity, like a skill. And to do that, what we have done is again, build a deep learning based capability where we shortlist a bunch of skills. When you say, Alexa, get me a car and then we figure it out, OK? [01:24:47] It's meant for an uber skill, which is a left or based on your preferences. And then you can rank the responses from the skill and then choose the best response for the customer. [01:24:58] So that's on the more natural other examples, a more natural is like we were talking about lists, for instance, and you want to you don't want, say, Alexa and Alexa are eggs, Alexa and cookies. Alexa, add cookies, milk and eggs. And in one shot. Right. So that works. That helps with the nationalists. We talked about memory. Like if you said you can say, Alexa, remember, I have to go to mom's house or you may have entered a calendar event through your calendar that's linked to Alexa. [01:25:30] You don't want to remember whether it's in my calendar or did I tell you to remember something or some other reminder? Right. So you have to now independent of how customers create these events, it should just say, Alexa, when do I have to go to mom's house? And it tells you when you have to go to mom's house. [01:25:49] That's a fascinating problem. Who's that problem on? [01:25:52] So there's people with skills who's who's tasked with integrating all of that knowledge together so the skills become seamless. Is it the creators of the skills or is it infrastructure that Alexa provides problem? [01:26:08] It's both. I think the large problem in terms of making sure your skill quality is high, we that has to be done by our tools because it's so these skills just to put the context they are built through Alexa set, which is a self-serving way of building an experience on Alexa. This is like any developer in the world could go to Alexa skillset and build an experience on Alexa. Like if you're Domino's, you can build a Domino's skills, for instance, that does pizza ordering. [01:26:39] When you have authored that, you do want to know if people say, Alexa, open Domino's or Alexa, ask Domino's Domino's to get a particular type of pizza. That would work. But the discovery is hard. You can't just say, go get me a pizza and then Alexa figures out what to do. Yeah, that latter part is definitely our responsibility in terms of when the request is not fully specific. How do you figure out what the best skill or a service that can fulfill the customer's request and it can keep evolving? [01:27:14] Imagine going to the situation I said which was the night or planning that the goal could be more than that individual request that came up. [01:27:22] A pizza ordering could mean a nighttime event with your kids in their house. And so this is welcome to the world of conversationally. [01:27:32] I mean, this is this is super exciting because it's not the academic problem of an LP of natural language processing, understanding, dialogue. [01:27:40] This is like real world. And the stakes are high in a sense that customers get frustrated quickly, people get frustrated quickly. So you have to get it right enough to get that interaction right. Said I love it. But so from that perspective, what are the challenges today? What what are the problems that really need to be solved? [01:28:02] And yes, I think first and foremost, as I mentioned, that. Get the basics right. Still true, basically, even the one shot requests, which we think of as transaction requests, needs to work magically, no question about that. If it doesn't turn your light on and off, you'll be super frustrated, even if I can complete the night out for you and not do that. That is unacceptable for as a customer, right. So that you have to get the foundational understanding going very well. [01:28:32] The second aspect when I said more conversational is, as you imagine, is more about reasoning. It is really about figuring out what the latent goal is of the customer. Based on what I have the information now and the history. What's the next best thing to do? So that's a complete reasoning and decision making problem, just like your self-driving car. [01:28:54] The goal is still more finite. You're evolved. Your environment is super hard and self-driving. [01:29:00] And the cost of a mistake is huge here. But there are certain similarities. But if you think about how many decisions Alexa is making or evaluating at any given time, it's a huge hypothesis space. [01:29:13] And we are only talked about so far about what I think of reactive decision in terms of you ask for something and Alexa is reacting to it. If you bring the proactive part, which is Alexa having hunches. So any given instance, then it's really a decision at any given point based on the information, Alexa, to determine what's the best thing it needs to do. So these are the ultimate problem about decisions based on the information you have. Do you think? [01:29:43] Just from my perspective, I work a lot with sensing of the human face. Do you think, though, and we touched this topic a little bit earlier, but do you think it'll be a day soon when Alexa can also look at you to help improve the quality of the hunch it has or at least detect frustration or detect, you know, improve the quality of its perception of what you're trying to do. [01:30:11] I mean, let me again bring back to what it already does. We talked about how based on you bargain over Alexa, clearly it's a very high probability it must have done something wrong. [01:30:23] And that's why you in the next extension of where the frustration is a signal or not, of course, is a natural thought in terms of how that should be a signal to you can get that from voice, you can get from voice. [01:30:37] But it's very hard like I mean, frustration as a signal. Historically, if you think about emotions of different kinds, you know, there's a whole field of affective computing, something that might be has also done a lot of research and is super hot. And you're now talking about a Farfield device, as in you're talking to a distance, noisy environment. And in that environment, it needs to have a good sense for your emotions. This is a very, very hard problem, very hard problem. [01:31:07] But you haven't shied away from hard problems. Well, you know, so deep learning has been at the core of a lot of this technology. Are you optimistic about the current deep learning approaches to solving the hardest aspects of what we're talking about? Or do you think there will come a time where new ideas need to look at reasoning so openly? I'd mind. A lot of folks are now starting to work in reasoning and see how we can make neural networks reason. [01:31:33] Do you see that new approaches need to be invented to take the next big leap? Absolutely. [01:31:41] I think there has to be a lot more investment and I think in many different ways. And there are these, I would say nuggets of research forming in a good way, like learning with less data are like zero shock learning. [01:31:56] One short learning and the active learning stuff you talked about is incredible. So transfer learning is also super critical, especially when you're thinking about applying knowledge from one place to another or one language to another. Right? That's really right. So these are great pieces. Deep learning has been useful, too, and now we are sort of matching deep learning with the transfer learning and active learning. [01:32:19] Of course, that's more straightforward in terms of applying deep learning in an active learning set up. But but I do think in terms of now looking into more reasoning based approaches is going to be key for our next wave of the technology. But there is a good news. The good news is that I think for keeping on to delight customers, that a lot of it can be done by production tasks. Yes, so and so. We haven't exhausted that. [01:32:47] So we don't need to give up on the deep learning approaches for that. [01:32:54] So that's just I wanted to sort of creating a rich, fulfilling, amazing experience that makes Amazon a lot of money and a lot of everybody a lot of money because it does awesome things. Deep learning is enough. The. I don't think no, I wouldn't say deep learning is enough, I think for the purposes of Aleksa accomplish the task for customers. I'm saying there are still a lot of things we can do with prediction based approaches that do not reason. [01:33:22] I'm not saying that and we haven't exhausted those. But for the kind of high quality experiences that I'm personally passionate about, of what Aleksa needs to do, reasoning has to be sold today to the same extent as you can think of. [01:33:39] Natural language understanding and speech recognition to the extent of understanding intent has been how accurate it has become, but reasoning, we are very, very early days. [01:33:49] Let me ask another way. How hard of a problem do you think that is? Hardest of them, I would say hardest of them, because, again, the hypothesis space of is really, really large. [01:34:04] And when you go back in time, like you were saying, I want to I want Aleksa to remember more things that once you go beyond a session of interaction, which is by session, I mean a time span, which is strange to versus remembering which restaurant I like. And then when I'm planning a night out to say, do you want to go to the same restaurant? Now you're up the stakes big time. And and this is where the reasoning dimension also goes way, way bigger. [01:34:32] So you think the space would be elaborate on that a little bit. Just philosophically speaking, do you think when you reason about trying to model what the goal of a person is in the context of interacting with Alexa? [01:34:47] You think that space is huge? It's huge. Absolutely. Do you think so? [01:34:51] Like, another sort of devil's advocate would be that we human beings are really simple and we all want like just a small set of things. [01:34:58] And so you think you think it's possible because we're not talking about a fulfilling general conversation, perhaps? [01:35:06] Actually, the surprise is a little bit after that, creating a customer like this. [01:35:12] So many of the interactions, it feels like, are clustered in groups that are don't require general reasoning. [01:35:23] I think you're right in terms of the head of the distribution of all the possible things customers may want to accomplish. The deal is long and it's diverse. Right. [01:35:35] So from the many, many long tails. So from that perspective, I think you have to solve that problem otherwise. And everyone is very different. Like I mean, we see this already in terms of the skills, right? I mean, if you if you're an average server, which I am not. Right. But somebody is asking Alexa about surfing conditions. Right. And there's a skill that is there for them to get to. Right. That tells you that the Peeler's matter, like in terms of like what kind of skills people have created, it's humongous in terms of it and which means there are these diverse needs. [01:36:14] And and when you start looking at the combinations of these. Right, even if you had pairs of skills and and ninety thousand to do, it's still a big concern of combinations. [01:36:25] So I'm saying there's a huge to do here now. [01:36:28] And I think customers are, you know, wonderfully frustrated with things and they have to keep getting to do better things for them. [01:36:38] And they're not known to be super patient. So you have to do it fast. You have to do it fast. So you've mentioned the idea of a press release, the research and development, Amazon, Alexa and I was in general, you kind of think of what the future product will look like and you can make it happen. You work backwards. [01:36:57] So can you draft for me? And you probably already have one bekim make up one for 10, 20, 30, 40 years out that you see the Alexa team putting out just in broad strokes, something that you dream about, I think. [01:37:15] Let's start with the five year first, so and I'll get to the fortius to some pretty real. [01:37:23] But want to be in broad strokes to start with. I think the five years where I mean, I think of in these spaces, it's hard, especially if you're in the thick of things to think beyond the five year space because a lot of things change. Right. I mean, if you asked me five years back, Will Aleksa will be here, I would have. [01:37:42] I think it has surpassed my imagination of that time. Right. So I think and then from the next five year perspective, from a I perspective, what we are going to see is that notion which you said goal oriented dialogues and open domain like surprise. I think that bridge is going to get closed. They won't be different. And I'll give you why that's the case. You mentioned shopping. How do you shop? Do you shop in in one shot? [01:38:13] Sure. Your batteries. Paper towels? Yes. How much? [01:38:18] How long does it take for you to buy a camera? You do a ton of research, then you make a decision. So is there is that a goal oriented dialogue when somebody says, Alexa, find me a camera? Is it simply inquisitiveness? Right, so even in the something that you think of it as shopping, which you said you yourself use a lot of, if you go beyond where it's reorders or items where you sort of are not brand conscious and so forth, that was just in shock. [01:38:52] Just to comment quickly, I've never bought anything through Aleksa that I haven't bought before on Amazon, on the desktop, after I clicked on a bunch of a bunch of reviews, that kind of stuff. So it's repurchased. [01:39:03] So now you think and even for something that you felt like is is a finite goal, I think the space is huge because even products, the attributes are many. Like you want to look at reviews, some on Amazon, some outside, some you want to look at what senator saying or another consumer forums saying about even a product, for instance. Right. So that's just a dust just shopping where you could you could argue the ultimate goal is sort of known. [01:39:31] And we haven't talked about Alexa, what's the weather in Cape Cod this weekend? Right. So why am I asking that weather question? Right. So I think I think of it as how do you complete goals with minimum steps for our customers? [01:39:46] Right. And when you think of it that way, the distinction between goal oriented and conversations for open domain say goes away. [01:39:55] I may want to know what happened in the presidential debate. Right. And is it I'm seeking just information on I'm looking at who's winning, winning the debates. Right. So these are all quite hard problems. So even the five year horizon problem, I'm like, I sure hope will solve these. [01:40:17] You your you're optimistic because that's the hard problem, which by the reasoning is not enough to be able to help explore complex goals that are beyond simplistic, that feels like it could be. While five years is a nice is a nice bar for that. [01:40:35] Right. I think you will. It's a nice ambition. And do we have press releases for that? Absolutely. Can I tell you what specifically the roadmap will be? No. Right. And what and will we solve all of it in the five year space? No, this is we will work on this forever. Actually, this is the hardest of the problems. And I don't see that being solved even in a 40 year horizon, because even if you limit the human intelligence, we know we are quite far from that. [01:41:04] In fact, every aspects of our sensing to do neural processing to how brain stores information and how it processes it, we don't yet know how to represent knowledge. Right. So we are still in those are early stages. [01:41:20] So I wanted to start that's where the five year because the five year success would look like that. And solving these complex goals and the 40 year would be where it's just natural to talk to these in terms of more of these complex goals. Right now, we've already come to the point where these transactions you mentioned of asking for whether or reordering something or listening to your favorite tune, it's natural for you to ask Alexa. It's it's not unnatural to pick up your phone. [01:41:50] Right. And that, I think, is the first five year transformation. The next five year transformation would be OK. I can plan my weekend with Alexa or I can plan my next meal with Alexa or my next night out with seamless effort. [01:42:05] So just to pause and look back at the big picture of it all, I see you're part of a large team that's creating a system that's in the home that's not human. [01:42:18] That gets to interact with human beings, so we human beings with these descendants of apes have created an artificial intelligence system that's able to have conversations. I mean, that that to me. The two most transformative robots of this century, I think, will be autonomous vehicles. But they're a little bit transforming from a more boring way, it's like a tool, I think conversational agents in the home is like an experience. How does that make you feel that you're at the center of creating that? [01:42:55] There's it's did you do you sit back and ask sometimes what what what is your what is your feeling about the whole mess of they can even believe that we're able to create something like this? I think it's a privilege. [01:43:09] I am so fortunate, like where where I ended up. Right. And and it's been a long journey. Like I've been in the space for a long time in Cambridge. Right. And it's it's so heartwarming to see the kind of adoption conversational agents are having now. [01:43:29] Five years back, it was almost like, should I move out of this? Because we are unable to find this killer application that customers would love that would not simply be a good to have thing and research labs. And it's so fulfilling to see it make a difference to millions and billions of people worldwide. The good thing is that it's still very early. So I have another 20 years of job security doing what I love like. So I think from that perspective I feel I tell every researcher this that joins or every member of my team. [01:44:03] This is a unique privilege, like I think and we have and I would say not just launching Alexa in 2014, which was first of it came along the way. We have when we launch Alexa Skillset, it become became democratizing A.I. when before that there was no good evidence of an SDK for speech and language. Now we are coming to this very you and I are having this conversation where I'm not saying, oh, leks planning a night out with an agent, impossible. [01:44:31] I'm saying it's in the realm of possibility. And not only possible, we will be launching this. [01:44:36] Right. So some elements of that every day and it will keep getting better. We know that is a universal truth. Once you have these kind of agents out there being used, they get better for your customers. And I think that's where I think the amount of research topics we are throwing out at our budding researchers is just going to be exponentially hard. And the great thing is you can now get immense satisfaction by having customers use it, not just a paper in Europe or another conference. [01:45:08] I think everyone, myself included, are deeply excited about that future. So I don't think there's a better place to and broke it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's just fun. [01:45:17] Thank you. Same here. Thanks for listening to this conversation with Robert Brassard and thank you to our presenting sponsor cash app Download. It is called Lux podcast. You'll get ten dollars and ten dollars will go to First, a STEM education nonprofit that inspires hundreds of thousands of young minds to learn and to dream of engineering our future. If you enjoy this podcast, subscribe on YouTube. Good Five Stars and Apple podcast supporta on Patrón or connect with me on Twitter. [01:45:48] And now let me leave you with some words of wisdom from the great Alan Turing. Sometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time.

本集資源與出處