Slashdot Mirror
Will Robots Cheer Up the Elderly?
Drath writes "Researchers at Purdue University are conducting a study by placing Sony Aibo robots in a Lafayette, IN nursing home. They want to see if robots can make people happy. Lets hope they have robot insurance." Makes you wonder if the AARP will have a position paper on this. Hope when I get old(er) I'll have gold plated killer robots around for my entertainment. pycananthemum also was kind enough sent in a link to the Project page.
It's a pretty well-proven fact that regular contact with loved ones keeps you healthier. So this could actually prove to be either a good thing or a bad thing...
Assume that these robots become friends to the patients. They will get their daily dose of contact from someone whose patience never gives out, and gives them someone to talk to about war stories or crocheting or whatever it is old people talk about nowadays.
But I'm worried that this may prove to create some problems too. It's already difficult enough to drag some people to see grandma in the home, and now they will have the excuse "she's not lonely, she's got CompanionBot!"...
So maybe this will actually reduce the interpersonal contact experienced by the elderly.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Patch Adams seemed to work well for elderly patients, why wouldn't Bicentennial Man?
This is very sad. I recall discussing with a colleague at Stanford University how Sony, while excellent at consumer electronics, may go to far with their robot technologies by allowing people to choose robots over animals, simply because a robot is 'cleaner' or initially, less expensive to maintain. Despite being a fan of technology and like most /. readers amazed at Sony's dancing robots (Search BBC website for video), I shudder at the thought of a sterile world where genuine life is sidelined for metal and plastic. I would prefer a dog's wet nose anyday to the artificial equivalent.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
This movie explains why I have doubts about this.
I can't see that this is any different to putting televisions into old people's homes, it's another (albeit novel) type of entertainment - the real point is if the technology should be used as a substitute for "real" human interaction. In the article a sociologist from MIT asks:
"I think we should take it as a wake-up call and really say, 'Now, why are we giving robot pets to old people?' And the answer, I think, is that we really have been struggling to figure out how to give enough people to old people."
The answer would be to allow them to have real interaction - wouldn't it be better to install some PCs in homes like this, to let them use the web, email, ICQ, BBS, whatever, and interact with real people. In cyberspace no-one knows you're old.
...check out the Nursebot Project here at CMU. Not only will these robots provide companionship, but they are intended to provide basic health monitoring and assistance with activities of daily living. The prototype robots have already gone into nursing homes and interacted with residents, and in general the response has been very positive.
Are they still showing reruns of Matlock in the year 3000?
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Viagra and Britneybots? Surely you mean sledgehammer and Britneybots. Though Willowbots are something that I could get very excited about.
HH
This is ridiculous. There are so many dogs and cats that are killed every day because they cannot find a home. Why can't these animals comfort the elderly we sweep aside? It could be like the Island of Misfit Toys. Everybody wins.
I know there are concerns about real animals doing all those annoying things like consuming food, excreting, and all those other bothersome life activities. Here's a plan: Let's work on bioengineering dogs and cats that eat used Depends and excrete Viagra! Another win-win situation!
Seriously, if we can't afford to take care of our domesticated animals, can the day when we can't be bothered to take care of our elderly be far off? This all comes back to our habit of tossing away the old possessions when the new model comes out, which is merely a scam of growth-based capitalistic consumerism.
One final thought: Any robot that is sufficiently lifelike to provide satisfying companionship would probably deserve the same respect we give "real" living creatures. (Of course, given the standards set for the two leftover groups above, this is not much.) I know everyone hated the ending to "A.I.," but go back and watch the first third of the film.
I'll give the researchers and Sony credit. They see a problem and they're trying to find a solution. I don't expect them to fix the bigger problem. I HOPE that the rest of us will assess our personal situtations and do the right thing.
I'm stepping down from my soap-box now. Thank you.
- Bill
For when the metal ones decide to come for you... and they will!
(Low bandwidth one here.)
The consume some food and attention, and they provide mental health. They encourage empathy and awareness of life, and often are a child's first experience with the realities of life and death. Domesticated animals are a pan-cultural phenomina, and are often used in therepy to stabalize and bring out patients with mental problems.
I think people that cite the fact that animals raised for food take up more space that could be used for food also should look at the severe pet overpopulation in the world as well.
Animals are tasty too. There's plenty of food in the world, and no threatened shortage. Steaks are tasty, and I'm munching on a salsa and mozzarella omlette, sausage patties and tofu chips with a scallion pepper sour cream dip. Mmmmm... good breakfast. Yay for the chickens, pigs and cows that went into my meal.
If people think this shit is going to go down when we colonize other planets they have another thing coming, resources are scarce and the more that can be used by humans the better imho. Once companion technology has progressed beyond the dog (a pet rock is better than a cat) we should cull the population and be done with them. This all might sound harsh but their usefullness is soon coming to an end and to keep them alive in the face of far greater human needs is inhumane.
Whoa, there buddy. If we sufficently lower our standards to the minimum necessary for mere life, then we've wiped out all that it is to be human. Sure, eking out life on a UV blasted landscape is going to be tough. The pioneers will have to suffer, many will die, and they will lack many amenities. But their children with be slightly better off, and their children's children will progress farther. Eventually, they will be sufficient enough to get to the level of civilization, and all that implies. Art, music, philosophy, pornography, reading Slashdot. I hope that they will be of the level so that pets are an afforable luxury.
Your vision of the future is inane - the logical end is simply to replace humans with robots, which is not exactly a survival minded concept. I'm speciest. I believe that humans are more important than anything else out there, because it's my team. And domesticated animals are a perk of civilization.
Colonizing other worlds is, IMO, an absolute necessity. But I hope we bring more than just mindless automitons there. We must bring civilization, and all that it implies. Each world will progress in a different direction, but I hope they all have the luxury of life to have a pet.
After all, as the quote says: "Where cat is, is civilization".
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Right, and no-one here knows a puppy that has cost $2000 in food, toys, additional living space and vet bills right?
Aibo is zero hassle. In the worst case, unlike a dog, if Aibo isn't what you expected you can put it in a cupboard and forget about it. How did all those puppy dogs get abandoned in the first place?
Sony knows that today's Aibo is an expensive toy, but it's part of a long term strategy (a company that size can afford to actually do some forward planning) to be the #1 supplier of home companionship and support robots once there is a market for it. They can only get better and cheaper. Humans aren't getting cheaper, and most of them don't like being treated as servants.
The future Aibo robot will remember where you left your keys yesterday, it may be able to go and fetch them, it can certainly turn off the TV and lights when you fall asleep. It may be able to screen your phone calls, order your groceries and help with your finances.
Of course Aibo will want to play when you're bored. It's not hard to make it play Peek-a-boo or Chess, depending on demand. It will probably chase thrown objects. It will try to make friends with *your* friends, and Sony can probably make it compete with you on the Playstation (even if the AI is secretly in the PS game itself)
If your Aibo smells smoke it will alert you. It will notice if you stop breathing, or if you fall and hurt yourself, and it will summon assistance without panic. Perhaps if people enter the house unexpectedly while you are away or asleep it will call the police.
When you're 25 these features are cool. When you're 45 they're convenient, and when you're 85 and your grandchildren have moved far away they'll seem necessary.
The concept is that an increasing percentage of our population need better care than is economically available today. Aibo is foreshadowing Sony's solution to that problem.
I have no "specific studies" for you. Having spent many years with dogs, however, there is simply no question whatsoever in my mind that animals have emotions. Dogs in particular seem more emotional than humans. At least, they're more expressive. Happiness, sadness, anger, guilt, irritability, they've got it all.
Instead of "data", try Occam's razor on this. Is it more ridiculous to believe that animals have emotions and thought, or to believe that humans alone of all animals have them? I think there are no fundamental differences between animal and human minds. We're just farther up the grade on the intelligence meter.
Will they be trained not to hump people's legs? Frail bones, robotic strength, could be messy!
GTRacer
- C-3PO is rendered powerless to annoy if the audience is deaf
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!