logo
Alexa got an AI brain transplant. How smart is it now?

Alexa got an AI brain transplant. How smart is it now?

The Star2 days ago
SAN FRANCISCO: For the last few years, I've been waiting for Alexa's AI glow-up.
I've been a loyal user of Alexa, the voice assistant that powers Amazon's home devices and smart speakers, for more than a decade. I have five Alexa-enabled speakers scattered throughout my house, and while I don't use them for anything complicated – playing music, setting timers and getting the weather forecast are basically it – they're good at what they do.
But since 2023, when ChatGPT added an AI voice mode that could answer questions in a fluid, conversational way, it has been obvious that Alexa would need a brain transplant – a new AI system built around the same large language models, or LLMs, that power ChatGPT and other products. LLM-based systems are smarter and more versatile than older systems. They can handle more complex requests, making them an obvious pick for a next-generation voice assistant.
Amazon agrees. For the last few years, the company has been working feverishly to upgrade the AI inside Alexa. It has been a slog. Replacing the AI technology inside a voice assistant isn't as easy as swapping in a new model, and the Alexa remodel was reportedly delayed by internal struggles and technical challenges along the way. LLMs also aren't a perfect match for this kind of product, which not only needs to work with tons of preexisting services and millions of Alexa-enabled devices but also needs to reliably perform basic tasks.
But finally, the new Alexa – known as Alexa+ – is here. It's a big, ambitious remodel that is trying to marry the conversational skills of generative AI chatbots with the daily tasks that the old Alexa did well.
Alexa+, which has been available to testers through an early-access program for a few months, is now being rolled out more widely. I got it recently after I bought a compatible device (the Echo Show 8, which has an 8-inch screen) and enrolled in the upgraded version. (Prime members will get Alexa+ at no cost, while non-Prime members will have to pay US$19.99 (RM84) per month.)
The New York Times recently announced a licensing deal with Amazon, which will allow Amazon to use Times content in its AI systems, including Alexa+. The Times is also suing OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, and Microsoft for alleged copyright violations related to the training of AI systems.
Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
I have good news and bad news for my fellow Alexa-heads.
The good news is that the new Alexa+ is, in fact, more fun to talk to than the old one, with more realistic synthetic voices and a more humanlike cadence. (There are eight voices to choose from; I used the default setting, an upbeat female voice.)
And I liked some of Alexa+'s new capabilities, such as booking a table at a restaurant and generating long stories and reading them to my 3-year-old.
The new Alexa is also better at handling multistep requests. 'Set three kitchen timers for 15, 25 and 45 minutes' and 'write a one-day itinerary for a trip to San Diego and send it to my email' were two prompts that worked for me.
And Alexa+ doesn't require you to say its wake word every time you talk to it, so you can go back and forth or ask it follow-up questions, which is a nice change.
The bad news is that despite its new capabilities, Alexa+ is too buggy and unreliable for me to recommend. In my testing, it not only lagged behind ChatGPT's voice mode and other AI voice assistants I've tried but also was noticeably worse than the original Alexa at some basic tasks.
When I asked Alexa+ to cancel an alarm the other morning – a request I had made to the old Alexa hundreds of times with no issues – it simply ignored me.
When I emailed a research paper to alexa@alexa.com in order to hear Alexa+ summarise it while I washed the dishes, I got an error message saying the document couldn't be found.
Alexa+ also hallucinated some facts and made some inexplicable errors. When I asked it to look up Wirecutter's recommended box grater and add it to my Amazon cart, it responded that 'according to Wirecutter, the best box grater is the OXO Good Grips Box Grater.' Wirecutter's actual box grater pick is the Cuisipro 4-Sided Box Grater. Luckily, I caught the mistake before ordering. When I asked Alexa+ to walk me through installing a new AI model on my laptop, it got tripped up and started repeating, 'Oh, no, my wires got crossed.'
And I didn't have access to some of the new Alexa+ features Amazon advertised, such as a 'routine' feature that triggers several different actions when a user enters a room. (I wanted to have Alexa+ greet me in the mornings with a motivational speech and a high-volume rendition of 'Eye of the Tiger,' but the presence-sensing feature hasn't been turned on yet, according to an Amazon spokesperson.)
Daniel Rausch, the Amazon vice president who oversees Alexa and Echo, told me in a recent podcast interview that many of these flaws would be fixed soon as Alexa+ rolled out more widely and more of its features came online.
'We've got some edges to sand,' he said.
Alexa, Give Me 500 Words on the History of Kitchen Timers
Rausch said the biggest challenge in building generative AI models into Alexa was that they were fundamentally different types of systems.
The old Alexa, he said, was built on a complicated web of rule-based, deterministic algorithms. Setting timers, playing songs on Spotify, turning off the lamp in your living room – all of these features required calling up different tools and connecting with different interfaces, and they all had to be programmed one by one.
Adding generative AI to Alexa forced Amazon to rebuild many of these processes, Rausch said. Large language models, he said, are 'stochastic,' meaning they operate on probabilities rather than a strict set of rules. That made Alexa more creative but less reliable.
It also made the voice assistant slow. Rausch recalled an early internal demo in which Alexa+ took more than 30 seconds to play a song – an 'excruciating' delay, he said, that led the team to rethink its approach.
'These models are slow to respond when they're following a deep set of instructions,' he said. 'We're asking them to do something quite hard.'
Another challenge to overcome, Rausch said, was generative AI's wordiness. Initially, when engineers hooked Alexa up to large language models, the system would sometimes produce long, verbose answers or introduce needless complexity. Alexa+ might respond to a user's request for a 10-minute kitchen timer with a 500-word essay about the history of kitchen timers.
The solution, Rausch said, was to spend several years combining more than 70 AI models – some Amazon's proprietary models and some from outside providers, like Anthropic's Claude – into a single, voice-based interface, with an orchestration system that routes a user's request to the model that is best suited to handle it.
'The magic, when it is working really well, is to get those new ways of speaking to Alexa to interface with those predictable outcomes or behaviors,' he said.
Learning a New Language
There are other barriers, too. One of them, Rausch said, is that many longtime users have learned how to 'speak Alexa,' phrasing their daily requests in familiar commands that they know the system will understand.
'We all sort of came up with our way of setting a timer to get the pasta done on time,' he said.
But Alexa+ processes language in a more fluid way. Users can talk to it as they would talk to a human – no robot pidgin required – and that may necessitate some retraining.
I assume that many of the flaws will be ironed out and that most users will acclimate to the new way of speaking to Alexa+. I'm also inclined to cut Amazon some slack, since building LLM-based technology into a reliable voice assistant seems like a thorny technical problem, and it's not like anyone else has solved it. (Apple, which has been struggling to give Siri an AI upgrade for years, certainly hasn't.)
I also don't think the limitations of Alexa+ suggest that generative AI models are inherently unreliable or that they'll never work as personal voice assistants. Ultimately, I think it's just really hard to combine generative AI with older, legacy systems – a lesson many companies, both inside and outside tech, are learning the hard way right now – and it's going to take some time to work out all the kinks.
For now, I'm going to downgrade my devices to the older, less intelligent version of Alexa and leave the beta testing to others. With AI, as with humans, sometimes raw intelligence matters less than how you use it. – 2025 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

AI startup Cohere valued at $6.8 billion in latest fundraise, appoints new executives
AI startup Cohere valued at $6.8 billion in latest fundraise, appoints new executives

The Star

time2 hours ago

  • The Star

AI startup Cohere valued at $6.8 billion in latest fundraise, appoints new executives

(Reuters) -Cohere was valued at $6.8 billion after its latest $500 million funding round, as the artificial intelligence startup moves to expand its market share in a highly competitive industry. The funding round was led by Radical Ventures and Inovia Capital, with participation from existing investors AMD Ventures, NVIDIA, PSP Investments, and Salesforce Ventures, among others. Unlike most AI companies like OpenAI and Meta's Llama, which are focused on broad foundational models, Cohere builds enterprise-specific AI models. In January, it launched North, a ChatGPT-style tool designed to help knowledge workers with tasks such as document summarization. The company said it will use the new funding to advance agentic AI that can help businesses and governments operate more efficiently. Alongside the fundraise, Cohere appointed Joelle Pineau, former Vice President of AI Research at Meta, as Chief AI Officer, and Francois Chadwick, former CFO at Uber and Shield AI, as Chief Financial Officer. The fundraise comes amid a broader surge in AI financing, as private equity and Big Tech channel capital into startups in pursuit of strong returns from innovative AI products. (Reporting by Kritika Lamba in Bengaluru)

[Watch] Why This Malaysian Influencer Says Your Design Degree Is Worthless
[Watch] Why This Malaysian Influencer Says Your Design Degree Is Worthless

Rakyat Post

time7 hours ago

  • Rakyat Post

[Watch] Why This Malaysian Influencer Says Your Design Degree Is Worthless

Subscribe to our FREE A Malaysian social media influencer has ignited heated online discussions after declaring that graphic design is a dead-end career, advising parents not to waste money on their children's design education. Sam Lim, a Malaysian content creator, uploaded a video titled 'Graphic Design Career Has No Future' where he made a series of controversial claims that sent shockwaves through the creative community. In the video, Lim boldly stated that he refuses to hire graphic designers because ChatGPT serves as his graphic designer instead. He argued that while a human designer costs thousands of ringgit monthly, ChatGPT only costs him RM99 per month. The influencer went further, claiming that with tools like Canva readily available, graphic designers have become unnecessary. He painted the profession as one requiring 'jack-of-all-trades' skills with little room for specialisation, even revealing that his own graphic design teacher has abandoned the field to sell health supplements instead. Double Standards? Why Single Out Graphic Design Lim's assessment of the local design industry was particularly harsh. He claimed that graphic designers in Malaysia eventually find themselves pivoting to selling clothing and building personal brands, working for agencies that do photography work he considers worthless in today's market, or relegated to designing restaurant menus and other mundane tasks. While he acknowledged that the field might have better prospects overseas, he insisted that it remains a dead end in Malaysia unless one possesses exceptional talent in photography or video editing. The video triggered an immediate and passionate response from the public. Defenders of the design industry pushed back hard, with one commenter arguing that tools are just tools and that without proper design thinking, even the fastest tools cannot create good design. Others pointed out the inconsistency in his logic, questioning why he would single out graphic design when interior designers also have AI tools available, yet remain relevant in the market. Follow Your Heart: The Passion Over Profit Argument However, Lim's stance wasn't without supporters, as some agreed that Malaysian graphic designers face significant challenges in the current market, while others backed his view that AI and automation would gradually replace traditional creative roles. The debate revealed a deep divide in how people perceive the future of creative work in Malaysia's evolving economy. One particularly thoughtful response stood out from the heated exchanges. A commenter advised against letting uncertain futures dictate career choices, emphasising that passion should drive educational decisions rather than fear of market changes. They argued that only by studying what genuinely interests you can you maintain the motivation needed to succeed, regardless of what others might say about your chosen field. While this debate isn't new and Lim certainly isn't the first to highlight the existential threat facing graphic designers, his provocative stance reignited a necessary conversation about career sustainability in the digital age that the creative community has been grappling with for years. Share your thoughts with us via TRP's . Get more stories like this to your inbox by signing up for our newsletter.

Companies are pouring billions into AI. It has yet to pay off.
Companies are pouring billions into AI. It has yet to pay off.

The Star

time12 hours ago

  • The Star

Companies are pouring billions into AI. It has yet to pay off.

Nearly four decades ago, when the personal computer boom was in full swing, a phenomenon known as the 'productivity paradox' emerged. It was a reference to how, despite companies' huge investments in new technology, there was scant evidence of a corresponding gain in workers' efficiency. Today, the same paradox is appearing, but with generative artificial intelligence. According to recent research from McKinsey & Co, nearly eight in 10 companies have reported using generative AI, but just as many have reported 'no significant bottom-line impact'. AI technology has been racing ahead with chatbots such as ChatGPT, fuelled by a high-stakes arms race among tech giants and superrich startups and prompting an expectation that everything from back-office accounting to customer service will be revolutionised. But the payoff for businesses outside the tech sector is lagging behind, plagued by issues including an irritating tendency by chatbots to make stuff up. That means that businesses will have to continue to invest billions to avoid falling behind – but it could be years before the technology delivers an economywide payoff, as companies gradually figure out what works best. Call it the 'the gen. AI paradox', as McKinsey did in its research report. Investments in generative AI by businesses are expected to increase 94% this year to US$61.9bil (RM259.82bil), according to IDC, a technology research firm. But the percentage of companies abandoning most of their AI pilot projects soared to 42% by the end of 2024, up from 17% the previous year, according to a survey of more than 1,000 technology and business managers by S&P Global, a data and analytics firm. Projects failed not only because of technical hurdles, but often because of 'human factors' like employee and customer resistance or lack of skills, said Alexander Johnston, a senior analyst at S&P Global. Gartner, a research and advisory firm that charts technological 'hype cycles', predicts that AI is sliding toward a stage it calls 'the trough of disillusionment'. The low point is expected next year, before the technology eventually becomes a proven productivity tool, said John-David Lovelock, the chief forecaster at Gartner. That was the pattern with past technologies such as personal computers and the internet – early exuberance, the hard slog of mastering a technology, followed by a transformation of industries and work. The winners so far have been the suppliers of AI technology and advice. They include Microsoft, Amazon and Google, which offer AI software, while Nvidia is the runaway leader in AI chips. Executives at those companies have bragged how AI is reshaping their own workforces, eliminating the need for some entry-level coding work and making other workers more efficient. AI will eventually replace entire swaths of human employees, many predict, a perspective that is being widely embraced and echoed in the corporate mainstream. At the Aspen Ideas Festival in June, Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford Motor Co, said, 'Artificial intelligence is going to replace literally half of all white-collar workers in the US.' Whether that type of revolutionary change occurs, and how soon, depends on the real-world testing ground of many businesses. 'The raw technological horsepower is terrific, but it's not going to determine how quickly AI transforms the economy,' said Andrew McAfee, a principal research scientist and co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Initiative on the Digital Economy. Still, some businesses are finding ways to incorporate AI – although in most cases the technology is still a long way from replacing workers. One company where AI's promise and flaws are playing out is USAA, which provides insurance and banking services to members of the military and their families. After several pilot projects, some of which it closed down, the company introduced an AI assistant to help its 16,000 customer service workers provide correct answers to specific questions. USAA is tracking its AI investments, but does not yet have a calculation of the financial payoff, if any, for the call centre software. But the response from its workers, the company said, has been overwhelmingly positive. While it has software apps for answering customer questions online, its call centres field an average of 200,000 calls a day. 'Those are moments that matter,' said Ramnik Bajaj, the company's chief data analytics and AI officer. 'They want a human voice at the other end of the phone.' That's similar to an AI app developed more than a year ago for fieldworkers at Johnson Controls, a large supplier of building equipment, software and services. The company fed its operating and service manuals for its machines into an AI program that has been trained to generate a problem summary, suggest repairs and deliver it all to the technician's tablet computer. In testing, the app has trimmed 10 to 15 minutes off a repair call of an hour or more – a useful efficiency gain, but hardly a workplace transformation on its own. Fewer than 2,000 of the company's 25,000 field service workers have access to the AI helper, although the company is planning an expansion. 'It's still pretty early days, but the idea is that over time everyone will use it,' said Vijay Sankaran, the chief digital and information officer at Johnson Controls. The long-term vision is that companies will use AI to improve multiple systems, including sales, procurement, manufacturing, customer service and finance, he said. 'That's the game changer,' said Sankaran, who predicts that shift will take at least five years. Two years ago, JPMorgan Chase, the nation's largest bank, blocked access to ChatGPT from its computers because of potential security risks. Only a few hundred data scientists and engineers were allowed to experiment with AI. Today, about 200,000 of the bank's employees have access to a general-purpose AI assistant – essentially a business chatbot – from their work computers for tasks such as retrieving data, answering business questions and writing reports. The assistant, tailored for JPMorgan's use, taps into ChatGPT and other AI tools, while ensuring data security for confidential bank and customer information. Roughly half of the workers use it regularly and report spending up to four hours less a week on basic office tasks, the company said. The bank's wealth advisers are also employing a more specialised AI assistant, which uses bank, market and customer data to provide wealthy clients with investment research and advice. The bank says it retrieves information and helps advisers make investment recommendations nearly twice as fast as they could before, increasing sales. Lori Beer, the global chief information officer at JPMorgan, oversees a worldwide technology staff of 60,000. Has she shut down AI projects? Probably hundreds in total, she said. But many of the shelved prototypes, she said, developed concepts and code that were folded into other, continuing projects. 'We're absolutely shutting things down,' Beer said. 'We're not afraid to shut things down. We don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's a smart thing.' McAfee, the MIT research scientist, agreed. 'It's not surprising that early AI efforts are falling short,' said McAfee, who is a founder of Workhelix, an AI-consulting firm. 'Innovation is a process of failing fairly regularly.' – ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store