Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Computing
  3. News

Scientists developing ‘angry AI’ based on recorded calls of irate bank customers

Add as a preferred source on Google

Many a sci-fi author has wondered whether it would be possible to give an artificial intelligence the power to feel love. Now, a firm based in New Zealand is embarking on a project that will imbue an AI with a very different emotion — anger, specifically the sort directed towards a customer service representative for a bank.

The Touchpoint Group hopes to develop an angry AI, using two years’ worth of customer calls from four of Australia’s largest banks. Over the next six months, a team of data scientists will use these calls to build a model that companies can then use to find the best response to common customer complaints.

Recommended Videos

When it’s completed, the platform will be able to simulate responses to a host of techniques intended to calm down the caller, according to a report from The Australian. There’s little information on what the AI will be capable of upon completion, but swearing, name-calling and angrily ending the call would seem to be likely inclusions.

The project is being called Radiant, named for a computer in Isaac Asimov’s work that could predict the future of the human race. While Asimov was a hugely prolific author, he never got around to penning a novel about the impact that artificial intelligence could have on his bank’s call centre.

If nothing else, Radiant demonstrates just how complex our relationship with technology is becoming. $500,000 AUD has been pledged for the project, which is a hefty price to pay for the opportunity to simulate an unhappy customer calling their bank.

At present, this project will be used for training purposes, but it does raise an alarming possibility — we’ve seen customer service lines outsourced to other countries for years, but how long will it be before an AI answers your call?

Brad Jones
Brad is an English-born writer currently splitting his time between Edinburgh and Pennsylvania. You can find him on Twitter…
AI may have just won a literary prize. My heart weeps seeing it poison our love for books.
updated book and AI photo

I had a hard time processing this news. As someone who has been deeply in love with stories since childhood and who grew up on the works of Arthur Conan Doyle, Terry Pratchett, J.R.R. Tolkien, and other such venerable authors, seeing an AI-written story win a prestigious writing award is hard to digest. 

If you are unaware, the winners for the Commonwealth Short Story Prize for 2026 were announced, and three of the five winning regional stories have been found to be entirely or partially written by AI. Or at least that seems to be the consensus among readers. As a reader and an amateur fiction writer, this hurt me deeper than any other tale of AI corroding our lives.

Read more
Canva and Adobe are coming to Gemini, and they want to make everything chatty
Adobe and Canva are plugging into Google’s assistant, betting that creative work starts with a prompt, not an app icon
Art, Collage, Photography

Canva and Adobe are moving deeper into Google Gemini, giving the assistant a bigger role before users ever open a design app.

Adobe says its "Adobe for creativity" connector is coming to Gemini in the coming weeks, giving users a way to describe tasks and send them through Adobe tools for imaging, design, and video. Canva is already rolling out its Connected App for Gemini in select English-language markets, with full availability coming soon.

Read more
AI can pass the Turing Test in live chats and appear more human than us. I am spooked now
UC San Diego researchers found GPT-4.5 was judged human 73% of the time in live conversations
Image of a human woman next to an AI-generated face with Real or Fake text at the bottom.

AI can pass the Turing Test in live chats, and the latest result lands with a chill. In a UC San Diego study, GPT-4.5 outperformed real participants at convincing judges there was a person on the other side.

The setup was harder to shrug off than a standard benchmark. Judges reacted to real-time exchanges rather than static prompts, then made a fast call based on conversation alone.

Read more