I love this piece in the New York Times: “Talking, Walking Objects.”
It describes our brave new world of gadgetry gone gallant – moving far beyond keeping us from getting lost or reminding us what’s on the day’s schedule. There’s so much more that’s within our grasp – quite literally.
Why not our everyday functional objects, telling us what to do? Informing, advising, even cajoling if necessary?
Talking heads? Why not talking beds to ensure that we put away the book and catch some zzzs?
Oh wait. Make that “set down the Kindle,” clap your hands to turn out the lights, then close your eyes.
The talking bed may not have been among the examples in this thought-provoking article, but the vibrating fork (to get us to slow down while we eat), the whistling raincoat (to forewarn us of soggy weather on the horizon), and the robotic vacuum (shall we rumba to your Roomba?) are among the pulsing, sensing, service-oriented aids coming to a kitchen near you – at least, imaginable – if they aren’t already present.
Move Over Rosie
While some of us may remember Rosie the robotic maid of Jetsons fame – might the jukebox suggest a tune based on time of day or read of our blood pressure? – robotics haven’t caught on in our daily lives the way some of us once thought (feared?) they might.
Given our seeming dependence on digital devices, perhaps that’s a good thing. Or, I’m dangerously retro (and resistant) to technological change.
All skepticism aside, the Times describes robots that incorporate language and social skills in order to ensure:
intuitive ways for people and machines to live and work alongside one another…
What’s not to love about that, not to mention the fact that our Future Robotic Regulars are being programmed with personality? (Oh dear. Does that mean that personality disorders are also a possibility? Will we be searching out comely and compatible characters even in this?)
Technology (In)Dependence
And yet, as delightful as the prospect of voice activated This and nagging-but-helpful That may be, I find myself hesitant when it comes to the concept of incorporating robotics into daily life.
Yes, yes, I know. We have timers on our coffee machines. The ubiquitous GPS. The Google as oracle, as background check, as Validation That We Exist.
Is my reluctance philosophical? Emotional? Based on budgetary considerations? Am I not an early adopter in this area, whereas I may be in others more along the lines of ideas and ideologies? Is it a matter of degree and purpose?
Pointing out that these technology advances are intended to be unobtrusive, the article continues:
… robots are entering our homes in subtle ways, through countertop appliances, hand-held tools and wearable gadgets that display specialized and isolated robotic behaviors… the next generation of products will be only more sophisticated..
Talking Fridge?
As I grow older (and health concerns not to mention physical constraints will invariably crop up), will I be more amenable to the talking fridge that tracks what I’ve eaten and tells me which way to steer my hand – toward calcium-rich products and more fiber, with a little B-12-happy beef in the mix?
My personal preference, domestically speaking, would be an I Dream of Jeannie blink to take care of the household chores, or even better – the wiggle of Samantha’s bewitching nose. But magic aside, could robotic devices be the next best thing?
I suspect if it involves cleaning, I’d be favorably inclined. If it has anything to do with reinforcing learning for my children, again, I’d be favorably inclined. Then again, you’d have to convince me that any educational aid is encouraging thinking, not simply memorizing.
Still, as consumers, won’t we be able to pick and choose what works for us, without handing our lives over to rampant robotics?
- What’s your take when it comes to amiable “mechanical creatures?”
- Will you adapt – and adopt – the friendly robot?
- Are you concerned about technology dependence?
Stepford Wives, anyone? 🙂
(Boring, actually, but, well, there are moments when….)
I agree that any robotic that helps in the cleaning realm is a godsend! However, I also agree that robotics is doing us no favor if it begins to invade the development of thinking and daily contemplation of our world. To today’s kids life is already taking on the facade of nothing more than a video game. That is not something to be encouraged by the “techie powers that be”. Never having to dust or scrub a bathroom again are very worthy goals for research! 🙂
You’ve got my vote, Vivian! I couldn’t agree more. (Robotic Windex and Ajax?)
A robot that dusts and scrubs showers? Oh, and cat litter pails. Sign me up!
Dearest D
Ah. This one we have actual experience to share for we spent time at the MIT Robotics Lab a few years ago and met actual androids. Well. Thy weren’t based on human figures (unlike some of the dodgy pliable receptionists sent to Japan) but huge manga eyes almost childlike 4ft nothing helpful beings. We were quite Smitten.
The Best use that was described to us was exactly as you describe – to assist ageing (so we can stay in our homes, like Robot and Frank – did you see it? Incredibly moving) and one that allowed remote contact (grandparents too infirm to travel could play the piano with grandchildren thousands of miles away with companion robots acting as surrogate for movement.
But our Absolute Favo(u)rite was a seal. This was a fully fledged robot but was in use in hospice as a pet to encourage the spirit to stay alive by caring for something that was programmed to respond to its “owner” (because terminally ill patients are unable to care for real live pets if truly infirm).
But robot and Frank made us weep. Highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it
Waving from the Other Coast.
Tg xxx
One of the ideas discussed in the research writing course I teach at Rutgers University is that advancing technology is a double edged sword. It gives and in the very act of giving, it takes away. It does things for us but the things it does for us does things to us (as I expressed in my comment on “Talking, Walking Objects.”). The main selling point of technology, especially consumer technology, is that it relieves us of effort, of the need to pay attention. While this is not, in itself, bad as it allows us to focus on what we consider to be more personally meaningful things, the problem is the sum of things relieving us of the need to exert ourselves and pay attention is soaring. Since effort and attention is what keeps our brains, bodies and relationships in shape, the sum of all things relieving the need is dissipating us, mentally, physically and socially.
Thank you for joining the discussion, Jeff. (It’s an intriguing one.) As you point out, technology is a double edged sword. As the extensiveness and number of things we have to (theoretically) make our lives easier grows, how much of our mental and social attentiveness is focused on that, rather than the priorities we are supposedly freed up to deal with?
I agree… the sum seems to be shredding our focus more than helping.
Incidentally – I agree with this remark that you left at the Times:
“Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be done. Unfortunately for our common human future, it will be done.”
The technology is everything from homes to cars is mind boggling. Entrepreneur just got a 2011 Toyota Azera that senses at what speed the wipers run!! My microwave senses the internal temp of warming up leftovers and shuts off when it’s ready. Crazy! Pretty soon we’ll all have Rosies (aka The Jetsons) to help us make it through the day! I believe many of these tech advancements will be beneficial, but when it takes over every aspect of life, is that really a good thing? What’s left to do on our own? Or is that the point?
BigLittleWolf et al –
If you, or anyone reading Daily Plate of Crazy are interested, online there’s a paper I presented in Australia in 2010 that digs deeper into what the technology doing it all for us is also doing to us in the context of GPS Navigation. Its title is “GPS Navigation…But What is it Doing to Us?” (Unfortunately, since it’s published by the IEEE, unless you have access through a research library that subscribes, only the Abstract is accessible without payment.) I’m currently working on a paper and plenary presentation for an upcoming International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS-13) at the University of Toronto (veillance.me) with the title “If Technology is a Dissipative Structure, Bring It On Deserves a Closer Look”.
A dissipative structure, as the term implies, is the means by which a system self-organizes by concentrating order in itself at the expense of its environment. All living organisms, including us, are dissipative structures. We have to eat to live. We extract the ordered energy and matter in our food at the expense of the eaten and get rid of what we don’t need. It’s not all bad. We can apply the order we consume to do good things. So then if technology is a dissipative structure, what or who is its environment? What or who is being dissipated? What or who benefits from the order of technology doing good things? Is the sum, as you put it, “shredding our focus more than [it is] helping? Without some keen individual and public attention to the “to us” side of the equation, I fear it is the former.
This sounds fascinating, Jeff. Thank you for mentioning it.
Whatever little pithy remark I was set to make regarding the Jetsons was quietly obliterated while bowing down to the commenters and your responses to them. Wow. Much to think about and I am so very glad that I can always count on that for every visit here…
Thank you, Heather. (Fabulous readers and great comments, no?)
As for the Jetsons, I smile whenever I think of how George and Judy would have “grounded” their kids… No interplanetary sock hops? 😉
Last January there was some blog posts on the New York Times article and video on “Talking Walking Objects”. If BigLittleWolf, and anyone else who posted is interested, a great International Symposium on Technology and Society was held at the University of Toronto in June. The URL is http://veillance.me. I gave a plenary presentation of my paper “If Technology is a Dissipative Structure, Bring It on Deserves a Closer Look.” I’ve also created a standalone (for those who did or did not attend my talk) PowerPoint presentation that touches base with some interesting, and hopefully new insights, into our love affair with accelerating technology and what it’s doing not only for us, but also to us and to our common future, business as usual.