Show colleagues how much you care by sending an AI avatar to your Google Meet call If you've always wanted to say you have "people" to attend your meetings, there's an app in development for that, as long as you're comfortable with the idea of eventually sending an AI bot in your place and potentially offending your human colleagues. MeetTwins, from Indian developer Aditya Shinde, is an AI assistant currently …
Anyone 'joining' a meeting with one of these will be immediately ejected from the meeting and sent to see HR, for two reasons: One, failing to attend the meeting. Two: attempting to exfiltrate commercially sensitive company information and the personal info of attendees, (i.e. their voice and video for which they had not given consent), to a third party. For which they may be fired.
Huh? 'sent to see HR' for not attending a meeting? What sort of a shithole do you work in?
The data control aspect, sure, but any meeting where one of these things might be seen as appropriate to delegate, should consist of a round of apologies and an early end. I'd happily send one to spike a meeting I thought was futile and to register my displeasure at having been invited / added to.
Sending a bot to a meeting because you don't like it is similar to submitting LLM slop instead of doing work yourself. Either the meeting didn't need to happen or you didn't need to be in it, in which case you can say that to justify why you're not joining, or it did need to happen and you needed to be in there, in which case you are refusing to do your work and wasting the time of your colleagues who had a good reason to assume that you would be there. I don't think it's an HR matter at the beginning, but it would be unprofessional and I would lose respect if I saw you do it.
1. This is a workaround to the organizational failure of calling meetings in instances where those meeting waste time.
2. I'd be delighted by this -- if only I could believe "that it won’t guess, make anything up, or promise something that a human ought to have final say on."
3. I'd like to see the transcript of a meeting where every invitee sent their AI avatar.
SLAPPY: Who is on stage.
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Who is?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Oh. So the name of the band is Yes.
SKIPPY: No, Aunt Slappy, Yes is not even at this concert.
SLAPPY: Then who is on stage?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: Who is?
SKIPPY: Yes.
SLAPPY: That's just what I said, Yes is on stage.
SKIPPY: No, Yes is not here. Who is on stage.
SLAPPY: Whaddya askin' me for?
SKIPPY: I'm not!
SLAPPY: Wait, let's try this again. Do you see the band on stage?
SKIPPY: No I don't see The Band, that's a different group entirely.
Is The Register's front page thumbnail of something resembling the Nintendo "Mii" avatars from twenty years ago really an accurate representation of this?
I continue to be confused by people using AI to "expand" upon what they have to say. Why not just send people the "prompt" text? This AI thing is supposed to be all about boosting productivity and efficiency, so why use it to generate _more_ text?
Likewise, why send a bot to a meeting? You've spent the time "telling it what questions to answer, providing documents or files participants may request, and supplying other context it may need". Why not just send that detail, those documents or files, and that context to your would-be meeting attendees? If they want to turn your terse bullet points into more flowery prose, they can AI generate that if they want.
Boss might accept an LLM-attendee, because it's new and cool. Boss probably won't accept documents-in-lieu of meeting-attendence, because "there might be people with questions your documents don't cover."
Such as,
PR rep: "Okay, we're scheduled to take delivery of the Megaladon 2000 ore-crushing machine at our #3 mining site on the 21st. What color is it?"
You: "The machine? I don't know. Who cares?"
PR Rep: "It's important that the machine complies with our official corporate color scheme of blue and yellow."
<conversation bores down the rabbit-hole of stupidity>
It's trash like this one is hoping to avoid by sending an AI agent to a meeting.
We'd usually call it a pipeline, or maybe a stack (no, no, it is definitely a pipeline), but clearly their processing is being done as a sandwich.
They don't even have the same layer top and bottom, which makes it a smörgås at best. They do offer choices at each level, but not enough variety to be worthy as a smorgasbord.
Speaking of variety, they list a choice of LLMs available to you: "ChatGPT, Groq, Claude". Groq? That is a supplier of things to run LLMs on, perhaps they meant Grok? And are just too ashamed to write that name (as they should be).
Ignoring the whole sandwich question, I think the avatars are just too hammy and their web page doesn't cut the mustard; at the risk of egging them on, I'll give one more example: as they say "We>re here for you".
I am reminded of the 2009 movie, "Watchmen" and the scene in which Dr. Manhattan duplicates himself multiple times, then has one of his duplicates go and have sex with Silk Spectre (Laurie Jupiter), while the majority of his consciousness and multiple other clones are simultaneously working on his scientific equations and experiments in his laboratory.
Could that be the Ultimate Put-Down?
