AI receptionists begin replacing humans in technological shift
"No more please hold, and it can handle all of the basic queries that you would typically have," Mr Hameed said.
"The human element isn't going to be replaced.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
8 hours ago
- ABC News
Should You Use a Dumbphone?
JOE BARONIO, REPORTER: How old were you when you got your first smartphone? PERSON: I think I was 12. PERSON: 14. PERSON: I think maybe 12 or so, 11 or 12. PERSON: When I was 12. PERSON: I was 13. PERSON: I think I was 12. Yeah, if you were born in the past two generations, you've probably grown up with smartphones. In fact, a study from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner in 2023 found that more than half of 10 to 13-year-olds and more than 90% of 14 to 17-year-olds owned a mobile phone. And, according to Redsearch, globally 13 to 19-year-olds spent around 7 1/2 hours on average per day looking at their screens. PERSON: I think I use it around 4 hours a day. PERSON: I think like 7 hours a day. PERSON: Two to five hours a day sometimes. PERSON: Probably 5-6 hours a day. PERSON: A lot, yeah, a lot. PERSON: Because a lot of the like the platforms I use like Instagram can be a little like addictive, sort of like it's hard for me to put it down. JAMESON, THE LUDDITE CLUB: Despite all the times my parents tried to warn me and try to limit my screen time, it wasn't until I reached the conclusion that my phone had been harming me and my wellbeing that I really decided to do something about it. This is Jameson and she is the co-founder of the Luddite Club in New York. The name Luddite actually comes from the 19th century. Back then, textile workers in England formed a rebellion, raided factories and destroyed machines they believed were threatening their livelihoods. During the industrial revolution. The idea for these Luddites is kind of the same without the destroying part. Instead ditching smartphones in favour of dumb phones, or feature phones, and promoting the conscious consumption of technology. JAMESON: My sleep schedule was off the charts, I was staying up until 3:00 AM. I was staying in my room, you know, on my phone. And I just, I felt bad, but I didn't really consider any option. I didn't feel there any options of ways to combat that. Jameson isn't alone. A new study published in the Journal of Human Development and Capabilities surveyed 100,000 generation Z's from around the world about their smartphone experiences. It found that for every year before the age of 13 that a person got a smartphone, their long-term mental health and wellbeing was worse, often leading to suicidal thoughts, aggression, detachment from reality, poorer emotional regulation and low self-worth. PERSON: I remember in year 10 I was really at my lowest and I think that social media was like the significant contributing factor to it. PERSON: I started really young, so I think because I also had social media, so when you start comparing yourself to those people there, I think it's really bad. PERSON: There's many issues like attention span because like even myself like sometimes in class I just doze off cause like I just can't like spend that much time looking at the board and like it was related to mental health as well like bullying as well and all that. JAMESON: Honestly, since I've gotten rid of my smartphone, I definitely spend more quality time with my family. I'm more present at family dinners. I do my schoolwork faster, I have better grades, I've become a lot less scatterbrained, and I've just become a lot more driven and ambitious. While smartphone luddism is a growing trend among teens in places like the US and Europe, I wanted to find out if any young Aussies are getting involved. So, I set up a table at the University of Adelaide to find out. Do any of you guys use dumb phones? You do? Nope. Anybody? Dumb phone? Was this a dumb idea? Maybe it was. In half an hour being here nobody's come, and that probably tells us something about how many people, young people do actually use these phones. PERSON: Excuse me. Hello. Can you just take photographs of us? Sure. I don't suppose you know anyone who uses one of these phones, do you? PERSON: What is that? This is this is a dumb phone. So, like one of these really old phones that doesn't have like apps or anything on it. You know anyone who does? PERSON: Yeah, this is too old. Too old? Fair enough. There you go. Should we move? I don't suppose you know anyone who uses a phone like this do you? No? Didn't think so. Well, we've been here about an hour, and nobody has even known anyone who's used one of these, so I'm gonna need to look elsewhere. Do any of you know anybody who uses a phone like this? PERSON: Yes, yes, yes. Carlos, a friend of ours in year 11. So, a young person actually uses it? PERSON: Yeah, but well, the motivation was a bit different because his phone got taken away. Oh. PERSON: No, not anymore, no. PERSON: No, never. PERSON: No, I don't know anyone. PERSON: No. PERSON: No. PERSON: No. PERSON: No. PERSON: No, that's back in the old days. DR MICHAEL CARR-GREGG, CHILD PHYSCHOLOGIST: It's certainly not something that my clients are doing here in Australia. In fact, I can honestly put my hand on my heart and say I don't have one who's doing that? Doctor Michael Carr Gregg is a child psychologist, and he wrote the original report recommending phone bans in schools back in 2018, which has since been adopted in all state and territory public schools. But when it comes to smartphone use outside of the classroom, he doesn't see the Luddite trend taking off here any time soon. DR MICHAEL CARR-GREGG: And that's because really the way in which my clients communicate with one another is through social media and therefore the smartphone is absolutely essential. It is the lifeblood of my clients to be with their friends. And developmentally, that's very appropriate. PERSON: I think it's just a matter of just like people being a little bit more like addicted to like online content. PERSON: I think there's a big fear of missing out. It's like if people aren't connected with their screens and like social media and stuff they like, can't see what other people are posting or doing on it. PERSON: A lot of my friends like live in different places throughout the world and I wouldn't be able to call them on a phone like that. What if the smartphone ban was enforced, though? One of the recommendations in the Journal of Human Development and Capability study is to implement graduated access restrictions for smartphones, keeping anyone under 13 from having one. PERSON: It's just probably for the better in future life so, yeah. PERSON: I think not for smartphones as a whole because I feel like it's important to have the communication when like, you're not with your parents and stuff. PERSON: 13 is past that age where you sort of enter high school and that phase, that sort of culture, I feel like phones are a big part of socialising and that sort of connection that many people rely on, so I think, I think it's a bit harsh. At the moment the recommendation is just a recommendation, but it's one that psychologists like Doctor Michael say should be considered by both parents and young people. DR MICHAEL CARR-GREGG: Age, of course, doesn't define maturity, but the law requires it to be a particular age. For me, I think the restriction under 13 will impact on young peoples's social life, but I think that we can find a work around. Would you guys ever give it a go? Ditching your smartphone for that? PERSON: Yeah. Yeah, I'm down. PERSON: Maybe it would be like a nice experiment to try. PERSON: I'd probably struggle to, but I would maybe give it a try, like just to improve my mental health and stuff like that. PERSON: Yeah, I think I would, I definitely think. I would, yeah. PERSON: Yeah, I would. PERSON: 100% cause like I'm I'm just way too addicted, you know.
News.com.au
8 hours ago
- News.com.au
Paralysed woman writes her name for the first time in 20 years after having Elon Musk Neuralink chip implant surgery
A woman paralysed since 2005 has written her name for the first time in two decades thanks to Elon Musk. Audrey Crews became the first woman in the world to undergo surgery earlier this month receiving Mr Musk's Neuralink chip implant, allowing her to control a computer with her mind. Ms Crews recently took to X to show the world how she was able to select a coloured cursor on screen and sign her name through telepathy. She showed off how she could also draw pictures, scroll with a mouse and use a keyboard just by thinking. 'I tried writing my name for the first time in 20 years. I'm working on it. Lol,' she said. 'I am the first woman in the world to do this.' Ms Crews was left a quadriplegic at age 16 following a car accident that left the vertebrae in her neck permanently damaged. By 2016, tech billionaire Musk co-founded Neuralink with expert in neuroscience in hopes of using AI tech to treat brain disorders. Three years later he revealed the N1 chip, which is placed on the brain to translate electrical signals into tasks. Ms Crews is just the ninth recipient. She underwent surgery at the University of Miami Health Centre where surgeons place over 100 threads, thinner than human hair into her motor cortex after drilling through her skull. The implant, roughly the size of a 10 cent coin, sends those signals to a linked computer or smartphone with Neuralink's software via Bluetooth, allowing patients with paralysis or neurological conditions to communicate digitally. 'Imagine your pointer finger is left click and the cursor is with your wrist, without physically doing it. Just a normal day using telepathy,' she said. Ms Crews has also started taking requests of what to draw next, recently sketching a cat, a sun and a tree after being asked by X users. She's also able to play simulation games testing her accuracy and speed by having her cursor track points on the screen as they change. Mr Musk even replied to a post about Ms Crews' story. 'She is controlling her computer just by thinking. Most people don't realise this is possible,' he said. While the technology won't allow her to regain movement of her limbs, the advancement has so far impressed Ms Crews who hopes to make the most of it by writing a book about her experiences. The chip is powered by a small battery that charges wirelessly. Asked if she ever imagined being able to communicate in such a way again, Ms Crews had one response: 'Not in all my wildest dreams, but the future is here.'
SBS Australia
12 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Are Australians at risk from lifting the restrictions on US beef imports?
"Australia bans — and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything — but they ban American beef. Yet we imported $3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. They won't take any of our beef. They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and, you know what I don't blame them, but we're doing the same thing.' When United States President Donald Trump singled out Australia's ban on US beef imports, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he would never compromise on protecting farmers or biosecurity. "We have made it very clear to the United States that we will not compromise on biosecurity. We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination. Indeed, we've made it a priority to strengthen biosecurity, because one of the things that makes Australian food and fibre the best in the world is a people everywhere, know that it stands for quality. It also stands for safety." Now, ahead of the tariff deadline on August 1, Australia's restrictions on US beef imports have been dropped. But the government says the timing of the decision is a coincidence, and has nothing to do with Donald Trump. Minister for Agriculture, Julie Collins, says a review into the US beef ban began in 2015 under the Coalition Government. "This decision has been purely based on science and a rigorous assessment by my department. Biosecurity risk assessment process is very robust and I have faith in the officials in my department to do this appropriately. These are experts in the field. Australia's biosecurity system is world-renowned for a reason and this assessment has now been completed." In 2019, Australia changed restrictions to allow beef imports from cattle traceably born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. In practice, however, the ongoing biosecurity rules meant that only a small amount of beef, largely shelf-stable products, were imported from the US. "We are assured that the supply chain and traceability and the safety of any food coming into Australia is safe. The US, of course, has been able to bring beef into Australia since 2019. Our farmers, are of course, are exporting already to the United States. We're exporting over four billion dollars' worth of beef to the United States presently and our farmers are a net beneficiary of our two-way trading system." So, why was the ban imposed in the first place? And should Australians be concerned about eating beef imported from the US? In 2003, Australia placed restrictions on the import of US beef in response to an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, more commonly known as Mad Cow Disease. Humans cannot contract mad cow disease, though in rare cases they can develop a variant which leads to dementia and premature death. However, the Australian food regulator deems US beef is low-risk. Trade Minister Don Farrell says the government would not compromise standards for trade. "We have not made any compromise and we certainly have not compromised Australia's strict biosecurity laws. This has been a process that's been underway for the last 10 years. It's now come to a completion and it's appropriate that we announce the results of that inquiry. But at no stage do we risk our terrific biosecurity standards for any trade arrangement." One key concern remaining after 2019 was that Mexico's livestock tracking system could inadvertently allow beef from disease-affected regions to enter Australia. However, the government says the review has found that the US Department of Agriculture protocols for beef imported from Canada and Mexico now address Australia's biosecurity concerns. Mark Thomas, the Chair of the Western Beef Association, says it's unclear how effective the US tracking system is. "Well, we implement an NIL system, as they call it, so any animal that's born on your property has a electronic tag, and that same tag is scanned and transferred whenever that animal leaves your property, all the way through to sort of slaughter. So an animal that's been slaughtered, they can go back and work out where that animal has been over its lifetime. I am unsure how quickly America can get up to speed. However, it's taken many, many years for Australia to implement that system and make sure that it works efficiently." Despite government assurances, National Party leader David Littleproud is among critics calling for an independent examination into the matter. "The government has not provided or released the protocols on which the beef from the U.S could be imported into this country. Those are the legal requirements that an importer would have to meet to bring beef from the United States into Australia, that was from Mexico or Canada. The fact they haven't done that raises serious concerns to me around how this decision has been made and the timing of it. If it was well planned, the department would be able to provide me with those details. They have not. I think the prudent way forward is to have an independent scientific panel review the department's decision and the protocols when they came out." Along with concerns about the spread of disease, there are also concerns about differing US regulations around the use of hormones and antibiotics on cattle. While some cattle in the US are given approved natural or synthetic hormones to help them grow, the US Food and Drug Administration regulates these, and experts say they are in extremely low levels. US beef, according to both Australian and US officials, is safe to eat, but is it better than Australian beef? Evangeline Mantzioris is the Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of South Australia. She says the diet of an animal impacts the nutritional value of the meat. "What it comes down to is the type of feed that the animals are given. So in the US they tend to be grain-fed whilst here in Australia, they tend to be grass-fed, and that produces differences in the way that the body of the cow handles it and in the way that they make and lay down fat in their body. The other thing that might make a slight difference is also the genetics of the cows. So assuming it's the same breed of cow, we expect grain-fed to lead to more fat in the meat compared to grass-fed." Studies show that grass-fed beef can be 30 to 75 per cent lower in fat than grain-fed. Grass-fed is also reported to have higher levels of beneficial Omega-3 fats, up to five times more antioxidants, and slightly higher protein, with some studies also indicating lower cholesterol. So, for consumers, choosing between local and imported beef will mostly come down to personal preference rather than health concerns. Dr Mantzioris says while the differences aren't major, grass-fed beef is the best option. "So if we combine all of those different components of the beef that we've looked at, overall grass fed beef, which is what we have in Australia, is the healthier option." But what about Australian farmers? When Australia lifted the ban, Donald Trump wrote on social media that the US was now going to sell 'so much beef' to Australia. Australia is the second largest exporter of beef products in the world. And while Australians are some of the highest per capita consumers of beef products, our relatively small population means we have a lot left to export. Mark Thomas says he isn't too worried about competing with U-S products. "Well, I suppose, from a from a cattle perspective's point of view, our only concern would be if we thought that US beef was going to compete with our own product here in Australia, and I don't believe that that is going to do so based on the price of cattle in the US over a longer period of time and considering their cattle numbers compared to what we have here in Australia." In fact, US cattle stocks have been in decline for two decades. The United States is the second largest importer of beef globally and cattle stocks in the country are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. The US Department of Agriculture says beef prices have increased by 8 per cent since the start of 2025, with one kilogram of beef costing around AU$30.. Mark Thomas says with beef shortages in the United States, it's unlikely the Australian market is going to be flooded with imported US beef. "Well, currently, there's a lot of Australian beef going into the US market, purely because they need it. At the moment, cattle prices in the US are just quoting a heavy steer close to $5 whereas that same animal in Australia is only going for $2.50 so how can they purchase an animal for $5 a kilo? Process it, send it to the other side of the world and expect to compete with the product that we have here?" While beef prices have been increasing in the United States, Australian beef exports broke an all-time monthly record in June. And the biggest buyer was, that's right, the United States. In New York, Stew Leonard Junior is the CEO of a grocery chain. He says he gets grass-fed beef from Australia and plans on splitting the tariff cost with his supplier. "We are a huge meat purchaser, and it's mainly the US. So you know, there could be some, that's one of our trains going by up there, okay, for the kids right there, they love that. But one of the things we don't get a lot from Australia, the only thing we do get is our grass-fed beef. They sell beautiful grass- fed beef in Australia. That's being tariffed a little bit. We're splitting that tariff with our supplier. We don't really buy beef from Canada or Mexico or Argentina."
