The founder and CEO of video conferencing company Zoom, Eric Yuan, recently expressed his interest in the concept of AI avatars taking over our roles in meetings. In an interview with The Verge, Yuan discussed the idea of having a ‘digital twin,’ an AI-based version of ourselves that can attend meetings on our behalf and communicate with others. He envisions a future where individuals can rely on their personalized language models (LLM) to represent them in various settings, such as interviews or sales calls.
Yuan’s vision is to leverage AI technology to enhance productivity and efficiency in meetings. He suggests that individuals could start their day by consulting an AI assistant, which would inform them about their scheduled meetings and determine which ones they really need to attend. For the meetings they choose not to join, they can send a digital version of themselves, while still receiving a detailed summary of the proceedings afterward.
On the surface, this idea may seem intriguing, especially considering the convenience and time-saving benefits it could offer. However, upon closer examination, the concept becomes questionable. The notion of having an avatar impersonating us during meetings raises concerns about authenticity and human interaction. Additionally, sending a digital version of ourselves instead of attending meetings in person may come across as unprofessional or disrespectful to our colleagues.
Moreover, Yuan’s desire to manipulate AI bots in order to influence outcomes is disconcerting. He suggests customizing the AI’s parameters to enhance negotiation skills or modify its behavior according to specific requirements. This raises ethical questions about the potential misuse of AI technology. If executives have the ability to control and manipulate AI avatars, what safeguards will be in place to prevent deception and manipulation?
Beyond the ethical concerns, there are practical considerations as well. Yuan’s proposal doesn’t bring any significant advancements to the existing capabilities of platforms like Zoom. Automatic note-taking and summary sharing already exist within these platforms. Therefore, his idea seems redundant and offers little added value.
Furthermore, the idea of an AI avatar engaging in a conversation with a journalist or any other individual for content creation feels disingenuous. It removes the authenticity and originality that comes from interacting with a real person. If companies start relying on AI avatars to communicate with the media, it undermines the genuine exchange of ideas and perspectives.
Moreover, this concept exacerbates the divide between corporations and consumers. It reinforces the notion that consumers are passive entities to be manipulated and deceived. By relying on AI avatars for communication, companies further distance themselves from their customer base, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to trust the information they receive.
As AI technology progresses, the line between reality and synthetic content becomes increasingly blurred. This raises concerns about the potential misuse of AI in manipulating public perceptions, deceiving customers, or spreading misinformation. If executives can simply rely on AI avatars to present a false sense of sincerity or claim contrition, it becomes even more critical for individuals to critically evaluate information presented to them.
In conclusion, while the idea of AI avatars replacing us in meetings may initially appear innovative, it raises significant ethical, practical, and societal concerns. Beyond the impersonal nature of this approach, it fosters deception and undermines authenticity. As AI technology advances, it is crucial for individuals to question and scrutinize the use of such technology, ensuring that it serves the common good rather than fueling manipulation and divisiveness.
Source link
