I like the way the machine appears to project emotions.
Do you mean "like" as in that is something you would like to have around the place, or as in "The opportunities for abuse are endless! I want one."
It's that whole idea of making machines appear emotional that disturbs me and is so vomit inducing. Or is it just that slurpy Disney cartoon style emotional expression I find so objectionable?
NWCCTV,
JIBO is meant to be a home assistant so it should be able to follow you around.
No, no. It's a "social robot". It's meant to sit around all day gibbering like social beings do. Actually getting a home assistant to do anything useful was just a bit hard for them to pull off. Especially for 500 dollars.
At this point, machine emotion is at best a simulation, and at worst a lie.
It is both. In equal amounts. That is what makes the human response so disturbing.
I truly do appreciate the research that went into this. The use of a simulated eye to communicate is brilliantly simple and effective...if the user can adapt. I can't. I won't. The notion of treating a dumb machine executing lines of code as sentient, is intolerable. ...And this is coming from a guy who named his soldering iron, his soldering gun, a large bolt he uses as a pestle, and his favorite drinking glass. (Obadiah, Malachi, Mike, and Amy, respectively.)
I'm sure how far one should take this "treating as sentient" idea. Children have "loved" their teddy bears and other toys for a long time. Adult humans have personified their creations as well, ships were generally female and they had names for example.
As for "sentience" that is a very slippery slope. I know that I have sentience but I cannot be sure that you do. I am aware of my existence, I feel pain, I feel all kinds of things. How can I be sure that you do? If I stick a pin in my finger it hurts, if a pin is stuck in your finger I feel nothing. How do I know if you feel? Or the other 7 billion creatures on this planet that seem to have a form like mine.
At the end of the day I can be sure of the existence of exactly one sentient being, and that is myself.
People name and love their ROOMBAs, for Pete's sake. They buy them costumes and take them along on vacations. People like robots. But there are almost too many to select from now. Too much noise, too many big promises. It's like the wild west. Snake oil, robot style.
Second, while the social- and cloud-mediated aspects of this particular platform don't annoy me personally -- though they're not my style -- I fail to see how Jibo is any different in that regard than a cel phone with camera, mic, 24x7 connectivity, Siri, etc.. If one is OK, the other is too.
Third, people respond to robotics that are expressive physically and have some kind of "face" they can latch on to for cues. We try to build those aspects into our own projects here. While the fellow tinkerer or engineer will certainly appreciate all the subtle technical challenges and solution present in any given project, the more casual observer needs something more emotional to hook into.
Lastly, it seems like vacuuming, taking the family photos, answering the phone, issuing reminders is what robots would are for in the house? A butler/valet/personal-assistant. My partner and I often talk about when robots are "slaves" or "pets". Tinkerers (like me) seem to make pets. The regular user seems to want a "slave" -- any treacle in the video suggesting that the 'bot is a "member of the family" notwithstanding.
Cynthia may well have chops but from your linked article:
"AIDA elicits facial expressions and strong non-verbal cues for engaging social interaction with the driver. AIDA also leverages the driver's mobile device as its face, which promotes safety, offers proactive driver support, and fosters deeper personalization to the driver."
Doesn't that smell like a pile to you?
I would not be so quick to say "More than most users on this forum". Most, perhaps, but many people here have done amazing things.
I fail to see how Jibo is any different in that regard than a cel phone with camera, mic, 24x7 connectivity, Siri, etc.. If one is OK, the other is too.
Back in the late 1990's I pulled out a camera in a bar in Helsinki. Grief did the customers around me object, I though I was going to die.
I'd had similar experiences in England previously.
Today we get idiots wondering why they get threatened for walking into places with Google Glass bolted to their heads.
The more pervasive our constant observation has become the more I think those guys in the bar in Helsinki were right.
Anyway the bottom line is: did that video make you want to buy a JIBO, for whatever it does, or did just the style of it make you want to be sick?
Certainly if I had a spare 500 dollars to spend there are many other gadgets at the head of the line.
Third, people respond to robotics that are expressive physically and have some kind of "face" they can latch on to for cues. We try to build those aspects into our own projects here. While the fellow tinkerer or engineer will certainly appreciate all the subtle technical challenges and solution present in any given project, the more casual observer needs something more emotional to hook into.
Those people will be lied to. They will be conned and cheated. Thius technology will be developed to exploit this new con, regardless of the intentions of the creator. Just sayin'.
Lastly, it seems like vacuuming, taking the family photos, answering the phone, issuing reminders is what robots would are for in the house? A butler/valet/personal-assistant. My partner and I often talk about when robots are "slaves" or "pets". Tinkerers (like me) seem to make pets. The regular user seems to want a "slave" -- any treacle in the video suggesting that the 'bot is a "member of the family" notwithstanding.
They is a different between "slave" and "tool". A slave if forced to do a task for you. A tool is what YOU use to do a task. A good tool automates parts of the task we would have difficulty with. But its a TOOL, and WE do the work.
If in fact we want a slave, enslaving another human is cheaper, and works better for us. But the slave will probably not be happy, and we'd be a totally jerk, up to the point where the slave eventually rises up and kills us. This is the difference to bear in mind.
They is a different between "slave" and "tool". A slave if forced to do a task for you. A tool is what YOU use to do a task. A good tool automates parts of the task we would have difficulty with. But its a TOOL, and WE do the work.
If in fact we want a slave, enslaving another human is cheaper, and works better for us. But the slave will probably not be happy, and we'd be a totally jerk, up to the point where the slave eventually rises up and kills us. This is the difference to bear in mind.
Point well taken. Robots, like the other tools we use, elevate us to a next level of work. The question is, is that where we want to be? 50% of Americans do not work; by
design or delinquency. Developing technology is road that we can not stray from now, for it serves protection, food and fortune.
50% of Americans do not work; by design or delinquency.
By what metric are you making that statement?
Only a hundred years ago women did not "work". They were wives, raising families and keeping homes. Hence the term "house wife". They waited outside the factory gates on a Friday to take the pay packets off of their husbands before the husbands went and drank it all. Children and the old of course do not work.
In that way the "working" population has probably always been less than 50%.
Just now the unemployment rate in the USA is said to be about 6%.
I'm not suggesting that official figures are to be trusted without question. I know full well that he definition of "unemployed" has been massaged a lot over the years.
However if it really was the case that 50% of Americans had no means of support the place would look more like the Congo than anything else.
Or, perhaps the States does actually look like the Congo inside but I don't see it through the Hollywood happy land filter.
However if it really was the case that 50% of Americans had no means of support the place would look more like the Congo than anything else.
The post said "not working", you are making the assumption or at least you are proposing that that means "means of support", two different things here in the USA.
The post said "50% of Americans do not work; by design or delinquency"
I'm trying to work out what that means myself. Like I said back in the day, wives, children and the old were not employed. They did not technically "work". They did not show up on the unemployment figures.
So what actually is this modern day 50%?
And yes for sure "means of support" can mean many things. The black market has been the backbone of the economy many times. Perhaps still is.
A news-informing blog;
A record number of Americans, nearly 50 percent, are either in poverty or considered low-income, according to Census data released this week. The data show a shrinking middle class beset by years of stagnant wages, high unemployment, rising health care and living costs, and a fraying government social safety net. “The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal,” Sheldon Danziger, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, told the AP. “If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years.” Forbes blog.
Is it inferred that 50% of Americans income is so low, that it does not count for a job? What about the 6% unemployment for the people who officially had jobs? What about the
people who quit looking for jobs, and are unreported? Information from the media, these days, is problematic;
Three laws of thought;
1> if a statement if proven to be true, then it is true. 2> A statement can not be true and false, at the same time. 3> A statement must be either true or false, at an instance.
If we can divine a method to detect truth, then maybe we will find it.
The statement that "50% of Americans do not work; by design or delinquency." is not the same as "50 percent, are either in poverty or considered low-income".
For example those latter 50% in poverty or low income may actually have jobs and be working very hard to survive. I'm in Europe and I know many people in that situation, they certainly do not design to be poor and I would not say they are delinquent.
Conversely, of course, I also know those who don't work. They have money enough due to land or property ownership and rent collecting. They certainly like the design of their situation and are totally delinquent in terms of actually being useful to society.
Comments
JIBO = Just Imagine Buying One!!! I have a few others but thought I would keep it clean!!!
It's that whole idea of making machines appear emotional that disturbs me and is so vomit inducing. Or is it just that slurpy Disney cartoon style emotional expression I find so objectionable?
NWCCTV,
No, no. It's a "social robot". It's meant to sit around all day gibbering like social beings do. Actually getting a home assistant to do anything useful was just a bit hard for them to pull off. Especially for 500 dollars.
Yes, but they don't talk to you or give you messages or advice either. They weld cars and take away human jobs. :blank:
Right you are! 1984 Heathkit Christmas Catalog
Now that's a family affair!
Perhaps he can already see "social robots" taking his job away!
Good observation.
Needs a balloon quote, "What can it do for me"
It is both. In equal amounts. That is what makes the human response so disturbing.
I truly do appreciate the research that went into this. The use of a simulated eye to communicate is brilliantly simple and effective...if the user can adapt. I can't. I won't. The notion of treating a dumb machine executing lines of code as sentient, is intolerable. ...And this is coming from a guy who named his soldering iron, his soldering gun, a large bolt he uses as a pestle, and his favorite drinking glass. (Obadiah, Malachi, Mike, and Amy, respectively.)
As for "sentience" that is a very slippery slope. I know that I have sentience but I cannot be sure that you do. I am aware of my existence, I feel pain, I feel all kinds of things. How can I be sure that you do? If I stick a pin in my finger it hurts, if a pin is stuck in your finger I feel nothing. How do I know if you feel? Or the other 7 billion creatures on this planet that seem to have a form like mine.
At the end of the day I can be sure of the existence of exactly one sentient being, and that is myself.
At least a Roomba tries to do the house work whilst you are out:)
Second, while the social- and cloud-mediated aspects of this particular platform don't annoy me personally -- though they're not my style -- I fail to see how Jibo is any different in that regard than a cel phone with camera, mic, 24x7 connectivity, Siri, etc.. If one is OK, the other is too.
Third, people respond to robotics that are expressive physically and have some kind of "face" they can latch on to for cues. We try to build those aspects into our own projects here. While the fellow tinkerer or engineer will certainly appreciate all the subtle technical challenges and solution present in any given project, the more casual observer needs something more emotional to hook into.
Lastly, it seems like vacuuming, taking the family photos, answering the phone, issuing reminders is what robots would are for in the house? A butler/valet/personal-assistant. My partner and I often talk about when robots are "slaves" or "pets". Tinkerers (like me) seem to make pets. The regular user seems to want a "slave" -- any treacle in the video suggesting that the 'bot is a "member of the family" notwithstanding.
Cynthia may well have chops but from your linked article:
"AIDA elicits facial expressions and strong non-verbal cues for engaging social interaction with the driver. AIDA also leverages the driver's mobile device as its face, which promotes safety, offers proactive driver support, and fosters deeper personalization to the driver."
Doesn't that smell like a pile to you?
I would not be so quick to say "More than most users on this forum". Most, perhaps, but many people here have done amazing things. Back in the late 1990's I pulled out a camera in a bar in Helsinki. Grief did the customers around me object, I though I was going to die.
I'd had similar experiences in England previously.
Today we get idiots wondering why they get threatened for walking into places with Google Glass bolted to their heads.
The more pervasive our constant observation has become the more I think those guys in the bar in Helsinki were right.
Anyway the bottom line is: did that video make you want to buy a JIBO, for whatever it does, or did just the style of it make you want to be sick?
Certainly if I had a spare 500 dollars to spend there are many other gadgets at the head of the line.
Those people will be lied to. They will be conned and cheated. Thius technology will be developed to exploit this new con, regardless of the intentions of the creator. Just sayin'.
They is a different between "slave" and "tool". A slave if forced to do a task for you. A tool is what YOU use to do a task. A good tool automates parts of the task we would have difficulty with. But its a TOOL, and WE do the work.
If in fact we want a slave, enslaving another human is cheaper, and works better for us. But the slave will probably not be happy, and we'd be a totally jerk, up to the point where the slave eventually rises up and kills us. This is the difference to bear in mind.
Point well taken. Robots, like the other tools we use, elevate us to a next level of work. The question is, is that where we want to be? 50% of Americans do not work; by
design or delinquency. Developing technology is road that we can not stray from now, for it serves protection, food and fortune.
Or the dog is unhappy with his left foot that looks to be made of wood.
By what metric are you making that statement?
Only a hundred years ago women did not "work". They were wives, raising families and keeping homes. Hence the term "house wife". They waited outside the factory gates on a Friday to take the pay packets off of their husbands before the husbands went and drank it all. Children and the old of course do not work.
In that way the "working" population has probably always been less than 50%.
Just now the unemployment rate in the USA is said to be about 6%.
And Bigfoot is said to be a generous tipper.
However if it really was the case that 50% of Americans had no means of support the place would look more like the Congo than anything else.
Or, perhaps the States does actually look like the Congo inside but I don't see it through the Hollywood happy land filter.
Ray
The post said "50% of Americans do not work; by design or delinquency"
I'm trying to work out what that means myself. Like I said back in the day, wives, children and the old were not employed. They did not technically "work". They did not show up on the unemployment figures.
So what actually is this modern day 50%?
And yes for sure "means of support" can mean many things. The black market has been the backbone of the economy many times. Perhaps still is.
A record number of Americans, nearly 50 percent, are either in poverty or considered low-income, according to Census data released this week. The data show a shrinking middle class beset by years of stagnant wages, high unemployment, rising health care and living costs, and a fraying government social safety net. “The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal,” Sheldon Danziger, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, told the AP. “If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years.” Forbes blog.
Is it inferred that 50% of Americans income is so low, that it does not count for a job? What about the 6% unemployment for the people who officially had jobs? What about the
people who quit looking for jobs, and are unreported? Information from the media, these days, is problematic;
Three laws of thought;
1> if a statement if proven to be true, then it is true. 2> A statement can not be true and false, at the same time. 3> A statement must be either true or false, at an instance.
If we can divine a method to detect truth, then maybe we will find it.
1> US gives away money, - to hollywood, corporations, and the Ukraine(50 billion)
2> this creates a debt so high, the end number might as well be infinity.
3> If the US needs more money, they just print it.
SO - if they GIVE away money, NO DEBT accountability, and Print their own money...........
Why do they need yours? (states do, they can not legally print money)
Way off course of the JIBO robot subject! There is something about that robot that makes people talk...........................:)
Well it's confusing, or at least I am confused.
The statement that "50% of Americans do not work; by design or delinquency." is not the same as "50 percent, are either in poverty or considered low-income".
For example those latter 50% in poverty or low income may actually have jobs and be working very hard to survive. I'm in Europe and I know many people in that situation, they certainly do not design to be poor and I would not say they are delinquent.
Conversely, of course, I also know those who don't work. They have money enough due to land or property ownership and rent collecting. They certainly like the design of their situation and are totally delinquent in terms of actually being useful to society.
Apart from the fact that I have no idea what money actually is, is it true to say that "If the US needs more money, they just print it."?
If that were the case then how come Detroit city went bankrupt? How come the whole government apparatus can shut down?
Clearly there is a limit to what they can print and expect to be able to get away with.
Let's keep this on topic, you are straying.
Remember, it's about JIBO, not politics.