Connect with us

Biz & IT

Is your product’s AI annoying people?

Published

on

Artificial intelligence is allowing us all to consider surprising new ways to simplify the lives of our customers. As a product developer, your central focus is always on the customer. But new problems can arise when the specific solution under development helps one customer while alienating others.

We tend to think of AI as an incredible dream assistant to our lives and business operations, when that’s not always the case. Designers of new AI services should consider in what ways and for whom might these services be annoying, burdensome or problematic, and whether it involves the direct customer or others who are intertwined with the customer. When we apply AI services to make tasks easier for our customers that end up making things more difficult for others, that outcome can ultimately cause real harm to our brand perception.

Let’s consider one personal example taken from my own use of Amy.ai, a service (from x.ai) that provides AI assistants named Amy and Andrew Ingram. Amy and Andrew are AI assistants that help schedule meetings for up to four people. This service solves the very relatable problem of scheduling meetings over email, at least for the person who is trying to do the scheduling.

After all, who doesn’t want a personal assistant to whom you can simply say, “Amy, please find the time next week to meet with Tom, Mary, Anushya and Shiveesh.” In this way, you don’t have to arrange a meeting room, send the email, and go back and forth managing everyone’s replies. My own experience showed that while it was easier for me to use Amy to find a good time to meet with my four colleagues, it soon became a headache for those other four people. They resented me for it after being bombarded by countless emails trying to find some mutually agreeable time and place for everyone involved.

Automotive designers are another group that’s incorporating all kinds of new AI systems to enhance the driving experience. For instance, Tesla recently updated its autopilot software to allow a car to change lanes automatically when it sees fit, presumably when the system interprets that the next lane’s traffic is going faster.

In concept, this idea seems advantageous to the driver who can make a safe entrance into faster traffic, while relieving any cognitive burden of having to change lanes manually. Furthermore, by allowing the Tesla system to change lanes, it takes away the desire to play Speed Racer or edge toward competitiveness that one may feel on the highway.

However, for the drivers in other lanes who are forced to react to the Tesla autopilot, they may be annoyed if the Tesla jerks, slows down or behaves outside the normal realm of what people expect on the freeway. Moreover, if they are driving very fast and the autopilot did not recognize they were operating at a high rate of speed when the car decided to make the lane change, then that other driver can get annoyed. We can all relate to driving 75 mph in the fast lane, only to have someone suddenly pull in front of us at 70 as if they were clueless that the lane was moving at 75.

For two-lane traffic highways that are not busy, the Tesla software might work reasonably well. However, in my experience of driving around the congested freeways of the Bay Area, the system performed horribly whenever I changed crowded lanes, and I knew that it was angering other drivers most of the time. Even without knowing those irate drivers personally, I care enough about driving etiquette to politely change lanes without getting the finger from them for doing so.

Post Intelligence robot

Another example from the internet world involves Google Duplex, a clever feature for Android phone users that allows AI to make restaurant reservations. From the consumer point of view, having an automated system to make a dinner reservation on one’s behalf sounds excellent. It is advantageous to the person making the reservation because, theoretically, it will save the burden of calling when the restaurant is open and the hassle of dealing with busy signals and callbacks.

However, this tool is also potentially problematic for the restaurant worker who answers the phone. Even though the system may introduce itself as artificial, the burden shifts to the restaurant employee to adapt and master a new and more limited interaction to achieve the same goal — making a simple reservation.

On the one hand, Duplex is bringing customers to the restaurant, but on the other hand, the system is narrowing the scope of interaction between the restaurant and its customer. The restaurant may have other tables on different days, or it may be able to squeeze you in if you leave early, but the system might not handle exceptions like this. Even the idea of an AI bot bothering the host who answers the phone doesn’t seem quite right.

As you think about making the lives of your customers easier, consider how the assistance you are dreaming about might be more of a nightmare for everyone else associated with your primary customer. If there is a question regarding the negative experience of anyone related to your AI product, explore that experience further to determine if there is another better way to still delight them without angering their neighbors.

From a user-experience perspective, developing a customer journey map can be a helpful way to explore the actions, thoughts and emotional experiences of your primary customer or “buyer persona.” Identify the touchpoints in which your system interacts with innocent bystanders who are not your direct customers. For those people unaware of your product, explore their interaction with your buyer persona, specifically their emotional experience.

An aspirational goal should be to delight this adjacent group of people enough that they would move toward being prospects and, eventually, becoming your customers as well. Also, you can use participant ethnography to analyze the innocent bystander in relation to your product. This is a research method that combines the observations of people as they interact with processes and the product.

A guiding design inspiration for this research could be, “How can our AI system behave in such a way that everyone who might come into contact with our product is enchanted and wants to know more?”

That’s just human intelligence, and it’s not artificial.

Source link

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Biz & IT

Biden warns cyber attacks could lead to a “real shooting war”

Published

on

Enlarge / US President Joe Biden, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo attend a plenary session of a NATO summit at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels, on June 14, 2021.

President Joe Biden has warned that cyberattacks could escalate into a full-blown war as tensions with Russia and China mounted over a series of hacking incidents targeting US government agencies, companies, and infrastructure.

Biden said on Tuesday that cyber threats including ransomware attacks “increasingly are able to cause damage and disruption in the real world.”

“If we end up in a war, a real shooting war with a major power, it’s going to be as a consequence of a cyber breach,” the president said in a speech at the Office for the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees 18 US intelligence agencies.

A number of recent hacks revealed the extent of US cyber vulnerability, ranging from extensive espionage breaches that have struck at the heart of government to ransomware attacks that have brought operations at an important oil pipeline and meat packing plants to a halt.

The Biden administration has accused the governments of Russia and China, or hackers based inside the two countries, of some of the attacks. US officials have warned that the administration would respond with a “mix of tools seen and unseen” actions, but cyber breaches have continued.

Although he did not say who such a war might be fought against, Biden immediately name-checked Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, alleging that Russia was spreading misinformation ahead of the 2022 US midterm elections.

“It’s a pure violation of our sovereignty,” he said.

“Mr. Putin… has a real problem. He is sitting on top of an economy that has nuclear weapons and oil wells and nothing else. Nothing else,” Biden said. “He knows he’s in real trouble, which makes him even more dangerous.”

At a June summit in Geneva, Biden personally warned Putin that the US would “respond with cyber” if the Russian state or Russian-based hackers targeted critical US infrastructure.

The prohibited sectors spanned energy, health care, IT, and commercial facilities, all of which have already allegedly been targeted by Russian hackers since the 2020 US elections. Others included transport, financial services, and chemicals.

Biden also said Chinese President Xi Jinping was “deadly earnest” about China becoming the most powerful military force in the world by the 2040s, as well as the largest and most prominent economy.

“It’s real… This boy’s got a plan,” Biden said, adding: “We better figure out how we’re going to keep pace without exacerbating [the situation].”

Biden stressed that cyberattacks were just one aspect of the growing threats facing the US, saying that there would be more developments in the next 10 years than in the past 50, placing a tremendous burden on the intelligence community.

“It’s really going to get tougher,” he said.

© 2021 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

Haron and BlackMatter are the latest groups to crash the ransomware party

Published

on

Getty Images

July has so far ushered in at least two new ransomware groups. Or maybe they’re old ones undergoing a rebranding. Researchers are in the process of running down several different theories.

Both groups say they are aiming for big-game targets, meaning corporations or other large businesses with the pockets to pay ransoms in the millions of dollars. The additions come as recent ransomware intrusions of oil pipeline operator Colonial Pipeline, meat packer JBS SA, and managed network provider Kaseya have caused major disruptions and created pressure in Washington to curb the threats.

Haron: like Avaddon. Or maybe not

The first group is calling itself Haron. A sample of the Haron malware was first submitted to VirusTotal on July 19. Three days later, South Korean security firm S2W Lab discussed the group in a post.

Most of the group’s site on the dark web is password protected by extremely weak credentials. Once past the login page, there’s a list of alleged targets, a chat transcript that’s not fit to be shown in full, and the group’s explanation of its mission.

As S2W Lab pointed out, the layout, organization, and appearance of the site are almost identical to those for Avaddon, the ransomware group that went dark in June after sending a master decryption key to BleepingComputer that victims could use to recover their data.

The similarity on its own isn’t especially meaningful. It could mean that the creator of the Haron site had a hand in administering the Avaddon site. Or it could be the Haron site creator doing a headfake.

A connection between Haron and Avaddon would be more convincing if there were overlaps or similarities in the code used by the two groups. So far there are no such links reported.

The engine driving Haron ransomware, according to S2W Lab, is Thanos, a separate piece of ransomware that has been around since at least 2019. Haron was developed using a recently published Thanos builder for the C# programming language. Avaddon, by contrast, was written in C++.

Jim Walter, a senior threat researcher at security firm SentinelOne, said in a text message that he spotted what appear to be similarities with Avaddon in a couple of samples he recently started analyzing. He said he’d know more soon.

In the shadows of REvil and DarkSide

The second ransomware newcomer is calling itself BlackMatter. It was reported on Tuesday by security firm Recorded Future and its news arm The Record.

Recorded Future, The Record, and security firm Flashpoint, which also covered the emergence of BlackMatter, have questioned if the group has connections to either DarkSide or REvil. Those two ransomware groups suddenly went dark after attacks—against global meat producer JBS and managed network services provider Kaseya in REvil’s case and Colonial Pipeline in the case of DarkSide—generated more attention than the groups wanted. The Justice Department later claimed to have recovered $2.3 million from Colonial’s ransomware payment of $4.4 million.

But once again, the similarities at this point are all cosmetic and include the wording of a pledge, first made by DarkSide, not to target hospitals or critical infrastructure. Given the heat US President Joe Biden is trying to put on his Russian counterpart to crack down on Ransomware groups operating in Eastern Europe, it wouldn’t be surprising to see all groups follow DarkSide’s lead.

None of this is to say that the speculation is wrong, only that at the moment there’s little more than hunches for support.

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

UK worries Starlink and OneWeb may interfere with each other, plans new rules

Published

on

Enlarge / Artist’s impression of low-Earth-orbit satellites like those launched by SpaceX and OneWeb.

A UK government agency is worried that OneWeb, SpaceX’s Starlink, and similar low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite-broadband systems could block each others’ signals.

Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, proposed new rules today in a report that details its interference concerns. Ofcom also said it intends to amend satellite licenses already issued to SpaceX and OneWeb to require coordination of frequency use. Without new requirements, the risk of interference could prevent competition by shutting new players out of the market, Ofcom said.

Non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) systems are more complex than the traditional geostationary type because they use hundreds or thousands of satellites, Ofcom noted. “Satellite dishes need to track these satellites as they move across the sky, unlike existing satellite networks, where the dishes are fixed pointing at a single satellite which is stationary in the sky,” the Ofcom report said. Because so many low-Earth-orbit satellites are being launched, “there is a risk of satellites from two different operators appearing to be in the same part of the sky,” causing interference known as “in-line events” in which multiple operators’ satellites are lined up in the sky, Ofcom wrote.

This interference can affect uplink and downlink transmissions between satellites and user terminals that serve individual homes, the report said. The interference can also affect links between satellites and the Gateway Earth stations that connect to the Internet backbone.

“Since NGSO satellites are moving relative to each other and relative to the ground, in-line events may individually only be brief, maybe a few seconds,” Ofcom wrote. “However, if an in-line event occurs and causes interference, it may take longer for the terminal to reconnect to the network. The interference could continue to repeat over time, reoccurring in a regular pattern which will depend on the orbits of the respective systems.”

Outages from interference

Users could lose service when there’s interference to either the user terminal or gateway earth stations, but interference to a gateway station would affect many more users. “[T]he impact of interference on gateway links would be much greater than on individual user links as each gateway provides connectivity for many users (perhaps hundreds or thousands of users depending on the design of the system), so a loss of connection due to interference at the gateway will be experienced more widely across the network,” Ofcom wrote.

Gateway Earth stations operated by different companies “are likely to require large minimum separation distances” of tens of kilometers to avoid interference, Ofcom wrote. In contrast, “multiple GSO [geostationary satellite orbit] gateways can be located on a single site” without causing harmful interference to each other.

The Ofcom report listed five NGSO constellations that are planned or already semi-operational. The biggest example is SpaceX, which is offering beta service from 1,500 already-launched satellites and has over 4,400 satellites planned for its initial phase. Amazon’s Kuiper division hasn’t launched a satellite yet, but it has 3,236 satellites planned in its initial phase, the report noted.

OneWeb—which is co-owned by the UK government and Bharti Global—has launched over 200 satellites and has plans for 648 satellites in its initial phase. Telesat and Kepler round out the list, with plans for 298 and 140 satellites, respectively.

Here’s the Ofcom chart listing low-Earth-orbit satellite networks:

Coordination difficult

The US Federal Communications Commission in 2017 adopted rules, including power limits, to minimize the danger of interference in NGSO systems. The FCC adopted different rules for different slices of spectrum. In the 17.8 to 18.3 GHz band, for example, the FCC said, “while terrestrial use of this band is significant, there are areas, particularly rural areas, where terrestrial deployment is less dense and by using mitigating techniques like siting considerations, off-axis rejection, and shielding, we expect FSS [fixed-satellite service] earth stations will be able to operate successfully without receiving harmful interference… If interference does occur, earth stations can switch to other bands not shared with terrestrial users or use alternative mitigation techniques.”

The FCC also imposed specific conditions to prevent interference and space debris on licenses awarded to SpaceX, OneWeb, Amazon, and others.

Ofcom is worried that the global system for coordinating satellites, overseen by the International Telecommunication Union [ITU], isn’t good enough to prevent NGSO problems. “The potential for harmful interference between different satellite systems is usually managed by operators cooperating with each other under the ITU satellite coordination procedures,” Ofcom wrote.

The agency added:

However, coordination between NGSO systems is proving to be more challenging due to the dynamic nature of these systems, combined with operators having differing rates of deployment (some operators holding older filings will not deploy their systems for a few years) and changing their architecture over time. We are therefore concerned that NGSO satellite services could be deployed before an appropriate level of coordination has been possible with other operators.

Ofcom is also worried about the coexistence of user terminals when two or more companies provide LEO satellite service in the same area:

A lack of agreement over how user terminals of different systems can coexist in the same area and band could restrict competition as a result of earlier deployed systems hindering later ones. Once one operator starts deploying user terminals, other operators wishing to launch services using the same band may expect to experience harmful interference from the existing user terminals. In the worst case, this could mean that the quality of their broadband services would not be sufficiently reliable in order to enter the market. Nonetheless, the established player could have an incentive to cooperate given that the interference is likely to be mutual, i.e. their services could be degraded as well.

New rules, license changes

Ofcom said its goal in issuing new rules is to minimize interference while encouraging competition. The agency proposed, among other things, “an additional explicit license condition requiring NGSO licensees to cooperate so they can co-exist and operate within the UK without causing harmful radio interference to each other.” Ofcom said it also intends to “[i]ntroduce checks when we issue new NGSO licenses so that these are only granted if all systems (existing and new) are able to coexist and provide services to end users” and implement new conditions letting Ofcom “take action to resolve degradation to services if this were to occur at a particular location or location(s) in the UK.”

To preserve competition, Ofcom said it will “introduce a competition check” into its licensing process to account for the “technical constraints that the gateway or user terminals could create on future licensees.” Ofcom said:

In particular, in a market that was concentrated, if there was limited prospect of the licensee system and future systems (applicants) being able to technically coexist, then this could form a barrier to future entry to the market. As a result, we are proposing that a key piece of information that applicants should provide when applying for a network license is credible evidence about the technical ability for their system and future systems to coexist. This would include evidence about the flexibility of their system and/or what reasonable steps new licensees could easily undertake to protect them. This information would also be used when assessing whether it is reasonable for new applications and existing services to coexist, to understand the reasonableness of mitigations being undertaken by existing licensees.

Ofcom said it plans to review all NGSO licenses to determine which companies are using the same frequencies. The agency said it will also amend the existing licenses held by SpaceX Starlink, OneWeb, and Kepler. The changes would require “NGSO licensees to cooperate with the other NGSO licensees operating in the same frequencies so they can coexist,” and allow Ofcom “to require operators to take action in cases of interference between NGSO systems which impacts the provision of services to users in particular location(s) in the UK.”

Ofcom said it will take comments on its proposals until September 20, 2021.

We contacted SpaceX about Ofcom’s report and will update this article if the company provides a response.

Continue Reading

Trending