Robots Without a Cause

WG55 writes "Have you noticed that more and more technology is more ingenious than useful? Stuart Jeffries of The Guardian writes in his article Robots without a cause that much technology produced today will change our lives little, if at all. He writes, 'Our response to being bored and rich is not to discard our possessions and live more simply, but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in which we might contemplate our shame.'"

Comments

Sculpted

[frieked]

From the article: The Audi A8's sensor, though, is more than a security device. After fingerprint identification, the car's computer tunes the radio to your favourite stations, the mirrors swivel according to your established preferences, and the driver's seat sculpts itself to your bottom.

Hmmmm, sculpted to my ass... Do they make a computer chair and/or couch potatoe model?

Re:Sculpted

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Hmmmm, sculpted to my ass... Do they make a computer chair and/or couch potatoe model?"

Yes. It is designed to expand infinitely, over time.

I like the "Dan Quayle" touch with the "e" on "potato." It adds to the whole Homer Simpson/everyman humour!

Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[palutke]

. . . write articles complaining about how it is being done.

The author cites a bunch of consumer-oriented gadgets as contemporary 'inventions' but seems to be intentionally ignoring the fact that _somebody_ has to pay for the development of these things. I may not want to buy a 3G phone, but I want a wind-up radio even less. If it isn't likely to sell, who will pay for development?

It is becoming more and more difficult to produce a new techology in your garage without serious funding. Many amateur (read: non-corporate funded) inventors start out to 'scratch an itch' because a product to do what they want isn't available. I'm spoiled enough that I don't spend much time contemplating how to grow food more effectively (or how to more efficiently meet my other basic needs), so I'm not likely to produce the next big invention that will make Mr. Jeffries happy.

You never know when the next big thing will come

[Anonymous Coward]

If you told someone in the 60's that the government was working on a giant computer network, would many have cared? Probably not. Heck, computers didn't seem to have much purpose to most people, then, either. They were something for the military, big business and sci-fi. But now, it's an essential part of many people's homes. It just takes time.

Why?

[gumpish]

Thanks to the newest wonders of technology we can get robots to do our vacuuming, transmit pictures on our mobile phones and unlock our cars (and adjust their seats) merely by touching them. In the face of this wizardry, Stuart Jeffries has only one question: why?

Because we can.

I'll start living more simply right now

[roystgnr]

By reading only the technophilic-sounding articles which are handwritten and hand delivered to me (that limits me to what, the Unabomber?), and ignoring anything which complains about the free exploration of technology but which was produced with a word processor and uses a global electronic network for distribution.

Hard to predict

[pen]

It's hard to predict what technology will change peoples' lives until after the fact.

This may be true for some, but it's not for me

[beee]

Just because the author seems to believe all robots fall under the classification of useless gadgets doesn't mean the rest of us see them that way. This articles strikes of the typical attitude that non-technically-inclined people get when they see us geeks fiddling with robots.

The truth is, with the generation of people in their late teens and twenties, robots will be not only commonplace, but expected. We've grown up with the first wave of robot companions (Furby!) and it will be far from out of the ordinary for us to expect our vaccuuming to be done by AI.

Not everyone is ignorant enough to excuse robots as mere toys, their application will grow infinitely in the coming years and they will be all the more transparent in our day-to-day lives. Right now we're afflicted with a overflow of gimmick bots that give people the impression all they're only good for entertainment, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Just wait 10 years and see.

Re:This may be true for some, but it's not for me

[crazyphilman]

That's a pretty good point. When you think about it, it doesn't really matter whether a gadget is stupid in and of itself. The technology that is within the gadget is all patented, which means it becomes part of the public record, and available (after 17 years, or earlier through license) to the rest of us.

Take that little vacuum for instance. Would I buy one? Well, ok, maybe I would, but I'd crack it open and hack it into something else, maybe a little patrol camera for my apartment. So, if I can think of that, others can as well. If you've got a little trilobite-like thing that knows how to navigate around your apartment, getting over cables and such, and using sonar to "see", you can go pretty easily from there to a fleet of security bots who can detect motion and automatically capture video of whomever is breaking into your apartment, store, or corporate location.

Ok, next step. Make the trilobite out of aluminum. Mount a webcam on the back, and make it stream images. Program the device to patrol your apartment, store, or corporate location. When it locates someone, it emails you and you can see what it's seeing on the webcam. You can call the police and bust the thieves without ever leaving your cubicle, or vacation spot, or whatever.

Moving along, make one out of waterproof, floatation plastic, with a floating/swimming feature. Emergency services send out thousands of them to find flood survivors using infrared. Whenever they run into someone, they beam back a GPS coord set and some video. Or, better: some kid's lost in a forest. Thousands of trilobites scurry through the woods looking for heat signatures. Or, police use them to find fugitives.

Take this a little further. Make the little trilobite out of steel, and beef up the power and suspension. Mount a stronger antenna, and make it radio-controllable, so that it'll navigate through, say, a terrorist's cave until it "sees" somebody on infrared, and then hand over control to an operator. The operator drives it into the middle of the terrorists, and activates the modified claymore mine built into its armor. Boom.

Sure, it's a silly little vacuum cleaner NOW, but what can you do with the basic idea of the machine? Now that they've built it, what else can you do with it?

Most of the weird gadgets that are around today could be put to better uses. Research is research. It only takes imagination to bend it to a purpose...

Re:This may be true for some, but it's not for me

[dasmegabyte]

Agreed. Do you ever think about the intelligence which controls the emissions in your car, turns on your Mr Coffee in the morning and keeps the fillament from overheating? Do you ever think about the complex switching system that brought these words from my copy of Opera to your eyeballs, or the network of computers and fuzzy systems that put your letter to the gas company on the right truck?

Of course you didn't. Because that's where the real world changing technology is: under the hood, unnoticable, seamless.

You might have noticed, if each of these intelligent systems had given you sass and proclaimed its greatness and autonomy a la the Jetson's world this article's author thinks he lives in. Not everything technological is a shiny new DVD player with a sticker listing its best features on it. And while most gadgetry isn't very satisfying, technology is no more devoid of artful interaction then a poorly utilized paint brush.

My digital camera was a gadget up until I took my first real high contrast shot and felt the urge to print it out. Now it's a tool. Now it's a satisfying part of my personality. And yeah, there are meager innovations in digital photography, and yeah maybe each one is crap. But as long as there are people willing to use these things as tools, and not as simple, flash inna pan gadgets, then all the innovation is socially viable. Ever see Picasso's light pen drawings?

And as for the A8: Have you ever been to the Met, seen the ornate sedan chairs? Nobody ever asks, "what good is this carved wood scrolling, this delicate laced cushion? it doesn't enhance our lives." Technology has always been a form of adornment. My car has a feature that dims the lights instead of turning them off. That's part of its charm -- and since I chose to bust my ass to buy the fool thing, it's a part of my life, same as the colour of my socks, my taste in music, and my thoughts on god and the universe. When new friends get in my car and the lights dim, they say "cool." It's trivial, even stupid. But it's part of our shared experience and therefore important.

Really.

[foo fighter]

Only after widespread network and Internet adoption did personal computers realize the productivity gains that had been promised for three decades.

This question should have been answered fifteen years ago when the question "when will PCs fulfill there promise" was first asked. No one answered it then and I really doubt anyone will provide an insightful or informative answer now.

J. Bradford DeLong has an excellent article in the current issue of Wired discussing this very topic.

I used to wonder why Wired didn't have a "Comment on This Article" link after their postings. Then I realized that Slashdot provides that service for them.

I belive the answer is this: people who are pushing the boundaries pursue what is interesting to themselves. Many of these interests will be obscure and useful to only a few; that's human nature. But occasionally someone will come up with a brilliancy that affects all of humanity profoundly.

Electric and steam powered engines did that for the Industrial Revolution. The Internet and networking did that for the Personal Computing Revolution. What ever the next revolution is it will come faster and harder than any revolution in the past.

Perspective

[FTL]

The author fails to look at history. "Pointless" gadgets aren't a new thing. A hundred years ago something called "indoor plumbing" was a pointless gadget. It saved one from going to all the effort of opening a window and yelling "gardez loo". But with the benefit of hindsight, it turns out that indoor plumbing was kind of a cool idea.

Every age has new ideas; some of which will last, and some which won't. The cutting edge ones invariably look pointless at the time.

Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[The_K4]

Um....if you live in hurricane/tornado/blizzard prone areas your view on that "wind-up radio" might change. Their IS a market for that product and people will pay for it (and it's development/improvement). Just because 1 person doesn't like/see a use for that product doesn't mean it isn't there. This article misses the point that these "creature comforts" may not make people "happy" or "fufilled" but they make getting my ass outa bed in the morning that much easier. Once i've had my coffee from my auto-timered pot and a shower (using hot water from a water heater with a timer that's a hugh energy saver) i'll be a lot more prepared to go insearch of happiness/fufillment/my next caffine hit.

Things ARE getting a little scary...

[chrisbro]

I think we may be headed towards a self-imposed matrix. I forget what game it is, maybe MOO2, that had virtual reality simulators for your citizens. Think Minority Report too, I think it was, where you can act out your every fantasy for a fee. What if technology like that becomes commonplace, where your every whim can be created and seem absolutely real? What kind of person would you be then? I can already see a kind of wilting away of life through my father, who just comes home from work and plays Everquest until it's time to go to bed. It truly is like he's leading a completely different life that he would much rather pay attention to than the real thing.

I'm not Luddite by any means; I fully welcome every new technology that comes around. But I wonder if our descendants will merely plug themselves into a fantasy world that for all purposes, is real...and what kind of person would be able to resist it and continue advancement in the real world.

But maybe I'm just ranting :)

Natural selection

[st0rmshad0w]

Of course we keep building more gadgets and robotic doodads, its just the natural order of things.

Think about it, how are the robots going to rise up and kill their human masters if we don't make enough of them?

Frankly I'm still waiting on those flying cars and maybe a robot housekeeper like on the "Jetsons".

Agreed

[GuyMannDude]

I've always wondered what George Boole's fellow mathematicians must have thought about him speding so much time developing an algebra based on only two numbers. And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.

While I look at a lot of modern technology as useless yuppie crap, there's something to be said about the relentless pursuit of scientific and technological advancement.

GMD

Re:Agreed

[mav[LAG]]

And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.

Funnily enough it actually generated quite a bit of controversy. Joesph Louis Lagrange happened to be on the review council and refused to believe that adding sinusoids could produce signals with corners. It was only after Lagrange died some 15 years later that Fourier could get his paper published.

Re:Agreed

[zwalters]

And I believe that when Joseph Fourier presented his work to the academy of sciences showing that any function could be represented as an infinite sum of sine and cosine functions, the result was a big yawn from everyone.

Actually, Fourier's proof was extremely controversial at the time, and has arguably had a larger impact on the subsequent development of mathematics than anything else in the 19th century not invented by Gauss.

Consider a square wave. It's a discontinuous function that by Fourier's theorem can be represented as an infinite series of continuous functions -- and yet it's trivial to show that any sum of continuous functions must itself be continuous. So which is it -- continuous or discontinuous?

The problem in this specific instance results from a failure to distinguish between pointwise convergence (looks at local behavior -- whether two functions give the same answer at the same point) and functional convergence (loosely, that the functions behave the same over the entire range being considered). But the real problem was that there was enough slop in 19th century definitions and standards of proof that it was possible to "prove" a theorem true or false using equally valid arguments.

There were other problems cropping up at the same time, of course, but the problems of Fourier analysis were a major if not the major cause of the movement for rigor that redefined math in the 20th century.

Connecting all this to things the average Slashdotter will have heard of, the famous Hilbert program was a prominent part of the movement towards rigor -- a series of important questions that had to be answered if rigor were to be possible. Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem and the Turing machine were both answers to Hilbert problems.

Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[TopShelf]

The author seems not to have much perspective as to how different people might view particular gadgets. A robotic vaccuum cleaner sounds great to me, since I've got 3 kids under the age of 16 months and hence a titanic workload just to keep the house under control.

The question for all of these gadgets is whether or not enough people find them useful and affordable to make the R&D investment worthwhile. This is inherently a risky proposition, so there will tremendous hits (DVD) and flops (Iridium)...

Best Purchase Ever ...

[SuperDuG]

Want to keep me entertained? Then let me use the new technology of a roto-tiller and let me purchase plants and plant food.

I recently made a $60 investment in a tiller garden utensils and plants (onions, peppers, tomatoes, mellos, and corn) and planted them a new garden in my back yard.

Granted gardening is far from new technology, but a tiller that weighs no more than 20 pounds and can still cut through 8 inches of earth? That's a pretty good feat of technology. I really enjoy the fact that what used to take an entire weekend now only takes me 25 minutes.

While the technology may not have a huge impact on our lives it does bring about more time for leisure. Some of us spend 9 hours a day at work, come home and clean the house (because we couldn't before work), make dinner, and then notice we have maybe 2 hours tops of free time before we have to get to bed and do it all again the next day.

Technology has made it easier for us to be able to actually relax and release stress from us. To not have to worry about the lawn because you placed a chemical that causes it to grow stronger and less fast or to be able to not have to worry about the house because a new weatherproof paint won't fade peel or chip. It's these "simple" things that we may not notice, but we also don't notice the impact they have on us. It can take an entire weekend to plant a garden, take care of a lawn, or paint a house.

It's technology that makes it possible for us to have more time to enjoy life.

Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

His argument isn't abut the usefulness of research, or the problem of its funding. His article isnt about the free market mythos.

It's about a cultural obsession with temporary diversion and amusement in novelty.

Shockingly, he supposes that lasting value in life might come from knowing oneself better, and that real sources of happiness are pusued with fewer contemplative distractions.

Insufferable, upper class twit

[ronfar]

But when a game becomes more satisfying than your job, maybe you should think of getting a new career rather than immersing yourself in ever more sophisticated games software.

Talk about your insufferable, upper class twit. This is a few steps below "let them eat cake" on the hate-o-meter, but not all that many, as it comes from the same place. I don't love my job. Some aspects of it are satisfying, even fun. But then there are the days that stretch before me like the Sahara Desert and I just wait for the clock to get to 5:00 PM. I don't have the luxury of having a new career. I have a job that I tolerate and that pays me a lot better than most of my previous jobs. I feel profoundly lucky to be making a decent, middle class income. However, I'm not Lord Salisbury, I'm not doing my job as a dilletante. This was the best job I could find in my area with my education.

Get a new career? Oh yes, everyone should do that. I'm sure that garbage men are in it because they love the excitement of garbage, and not because it is the way they afford food and a roof over their heads. I'm sure that all the janitors in the world feel the same about sanitation. Why doesn't everyone just work doing what they love? I'm sure the world would run swimmingly.

If someone wants to get home from a hard day of work (ever notice how they don't call it happy-fun-time?) and wants to play a game of Splinter Cell why is it the business of some over paid, stuck up, hack who probably wonders why I don't just jet off to Singapore whenever I feel bored?

Oh no! People are enjoying luxuries!

[Nindalf]

...and they're not even the same luxuries I want! Don't they know that there are people starving, and dying of diseases?

This kind of bootless diatribe is as old as language. Expect part 2, "People Were Better When I Was Young," next week.

Don't knock the wind-up radio

[Hittite Creosote]

but I want a wind-up radio even less. If it isn't likely to sell, who will pay for development?

~The wind up radio? Trevor Bayliss developed it at his own cost, and Christopher Staines and South African entrepreneur Rory Stear put up the finance to make production a reality. Previously, people had to spend more on batteries than they did on the radio. Batteries are more expensive and less reliable in rural Africa than they are in the rich parts of the world.

Are they any use? Read this and make your mind up. But I'd say they're a damn sight more useful to many more people than a 3G phone.

They broke the mold for new technology

[daves]

All new technology is first monetized in the sex industry. Sony just messed up in coming out with a toy dog first.

100% Fun

[Tony]

My life is whittled down to the basics, so I only concentrate on what's important. Gadgets are just used to fill voids in empty lives.

And what is a 'full' life, pray tell?

Seriously, what do the self-righteously self-deprived do with their copious free time?

My life is filled with useless shit, and you know what? I love it! I am *extremely* content with all my CDs of music (more and more coming from independent labels, as that's where the interesting stuff is), my shelves and shelves of escapist SF, my Tivo full of Farscape re-runs (damn you, sci-fi, for cancelling this great show!), my office full of computer-geek stuff.

Once I lived the spartan life, and I thought great thoughts, and I wrote great stories. I was published once in a while, but eventually the rejection slips became more frequent, and more magazines went belly-up.

And what did I realize? I'm gonna die, and everything I know is going to die with me. So I spend time with friends when I can, and have fun at all times.

And I love the little shit that pervades my life.

I was going to reply earlier...

[Mysticalfruit]

But I tripped on my Roomba and fell on my battlebot...

Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[thelexx]

"...I've got 3 kids under the age of 16 months..."

That's either triplets or one hell of a woman.

On "time-saving" devices.

[Tyler Durden]

I've said something similar to this before, but when I think of where society is heading, I think this selection from the Tao of Pooh is an important thing to consider.

In case the site gets /.ed into oblivion, the most relevant piece goes like this...

Practically speaking, if timesaving devices really saved time, there would be more time available to us now than ever before in history. But, strangely enough, we seem to have less time than even a few years ago. It's really great fun to go someplace where there are no timesaving devices because, when you do, you find that you have LOTS OF TIME. Elsewhere, you're too busy working to pay for machines to save you time so you won't have to work so hard.

Does anyone else feel like this? How much of the time do we spend stressing out on work-related pressure is born of necessity and how much is just for gaining status? Or better yet, how much of it is to feed an economic machine that depends on convincing us that killing ourselves to get useless stuff is worth more than the piece of mind we could achieve without actively pursuing said stuff in the first place. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person in the world who notices there is a problem here yet I have to suffer under a lot of needless pressure because of others who demand everything "right now" without a thought of why. It wouldn't surprise me if the medical advances made possible by the current economic system are outnumbered by the health problems it caused due to work-related stress. Fuck, I'd rather die 10 years earlier than I would normally if it means that I get to relax and enjoy myself some while I was alive.

The Walden Fallacy

[Tony]

Shockingly, he supposes that lasting value in life might come from knowing oneself better, and that real sources of happiness are pusued with fewer contemplative distractions.

Not to sound like a nihilistic hedonist, but... there is no lasting value in life.

In due time, we will all die.

The only lasting value in life is the joy we derive from life; our only real duty in life is to increase the amount of joy experienced by others.

The path to death may be joyous or somber or angry; but it cannot be avoided. Every step you take is one step closer to the ultimate demise.

Knowlege is only valuable inasmuch as it contributes to your joy, and the joy of those whom you affect. I enjoy intellectual conversation, and so I value those who seek knowlege.

But are the real sources of happiness pursued with fewer contemplative distractions? For some, yes. For others, no. Me, I'm not arrogant enough to assume my inner complexity requires constant contemplation. I think I have myself figured out fairly well. Occassionaly, I reconsider who I truly am; but for the most part, I merely exist, and enjoy that existence.

But, YMMV, of course. But to assume your purpose in life is another's purpose is the worst kind of self-important drivel in existence.

Re:The Walden Fallacy

[dave_mcmillen]

Not to sound like a nihilistic hedonist, but... there is no lasting value in life. In due time, we will all die. The only lasting value in life is the joy we derive from life; our only real duty in life is to increase the amount of joy experienced by others.

Wow, what would you have written if you did want to sound like a nihilistic hedonist?

Re:The Walden Fallacy

[rabiteman]

What I'd really like to see is "Zen Meditation: The Video Game". That would allow me to engage in "deep" contemplation and mindless distraction at the same time.

What you're looking for is called "Dance Dance Revolution", or the cheap PC knockoff called "Diet Diet Revolution" that had me spending so much time 'meditating' that I almost got in some serious trouble that semester... Seriously, get up to 7 or 8 'feet' of difficulty and you'll find yourself in another dimension, a dimension featuring plenty of bright colours and scrolling arrows but a surprising lack of self.

Hear, hear.

[StarKruzr]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the author can frankly go fsck himself.

Plenty of similar arguments are made about the "worthlessness" of space travel, but what people often tend to ignore is the exponential effect of pure scientific research on useful technology development, not to mention the technological spinoffs from space technology research.

"Contemplate our shame," indeed. He's the one who should be ashamed of himself.

Re:Those who can, do. Those who can't . . .

[TopShelf]

For the record, that's twins (3/4/2002) and a little brother (3/28/2003), and yes, that is one hell of a woman!

Re:You never know when the next big thing will com

[FatRatBastard]

Well, this is the Guardian, which means itâ(TM)s your average cultural snob, elitist leftie whinging and whining about how modern life is sooooooooooo bad because we, the unwashed, unsophisticated masses spend too much time with our crass, petty little toys and not enough time brooding over the existential meaning of âoewhat it all means.â

Translation: theyâ(TM)re a bunch of fucking twats.

Let Stuart Jeffries climb a pole and ponder his bloody navel, Iâ(TM)ve got cars to steal in GTA:VC.