Authenticity POVs

Can a machine distinguish between an angry smile vs a genuine smile

Tech:

“Perspective” is one of the products that Google offers to moderate the online conversation by giving rating of the content’s toxicity (defined by how likely it would make people leave the conversation). For example, if I comment “That’s nice.”, it would score somewhere between OK and medium-warning (am I being genuine or sarcastic?).

I think it creates two layers of virtual reality. If someone offends you, you might give him a smiley emoji while you’re not smiling (Layer 1), but can a machine distinguish between an angry smile vs a genuine smile (when you’re really smiling in the physical world) by giving high toxic level? (Layer 2).

Nonetheless this is an opportunity for brands to be as authentic as possible in managing thousands of comments, complains, or questions in the digital conversation.

VA:

When human interaction with digital devices escalate from button, to touch, then voice, one thing that still remains: understanding human behavior. Each device tries hard to be the one that understand your life best. Voice, in particular, it gives us a more relaxing experience – more human. Voice requires less energy than text.

I think it can be further developed to a “voiceless” devices – like silent prayer to God and your prayer is granted.

Brands might want to secure which human need they want to be strongly associated with to an individual level.

Sport:

For example, if I want to buy a running shoe, I can talk to the VA. The VA will scan the recommendation which already cleaned by Perspective, then give me the best fit running shoe for me. Nike and Adidas should have the capability to present themselves as the best running shoe for each and every single query.

SUMMARY/QUESTION:

Authenticity, I think, should be everywhere. Be it sport, be it technology.

QUOTE:

“Brand and athlete that drive the authenticity the most is the one that will win.” – Pam El, CMO of NBA

Written by Suhendi Pusap