Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using AI to Monitor Kids Online

Posted by Zonk on from the ok-yeah-sigh-think-of-the-children dept.

eldavojohn writes "An Australian startup believes that the best way to protect your children online is through an artificially intelligent software program. The inventors of this idea are banking on children's attachment to pets. The creature's 'cuteness' and helpfulness will ingratiate the software with the child, so that he or she will respect it and listen to it, or even find it as a likable companion. Agent-based internet applications are nothing new but for concerned parents, this might be an admirable solution to what is perceived by many to be a growing problem. From one of the inventors: 'Of course, we're also planning to release a version of the Moji IM for teenagers and adults, but we're focusing on children at the moment.'"

41 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Suggestion by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ooh! Can they bring back the purple gorilla and parrot we all know and love from the wonderful folks at Bonzi??

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  2. Kids are smarter than AI by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Funny

    AI: Todd ...
    Kid: Yes, ComputerKat?
    AI: Are you surfing a smutty web site? Purr.....
    Kid: Nooooooooooo... I'm just going to a site about the *pig* named Babe.
    AI: Hm ... it *looks* like a smutty website.
    Kid: Come on, ComputerKat, give me a little credit. If I were going to a smutty website, I wouldn't go to one that *looked* like a smutty website. I'd go to one that I could pass off as being related to a kiddie movie!
    AI: Oh, okay ... just checking. Purrrr.....
    Kid: *stupid AI...*

    (courtesy South Park ladder-to-heaven episode)

    --
    Apology to Ubuntu forum.
  3. Not another one.. by zyl0x · · Score: 2, Informative

    Another virtual pet? You know what this reminds me of? Bonzi Buddy, which was simultaneously torturous, defective, and ridiculous. These guys better know what Bonzi Buddy was, and what it did wrong, otherwise I predict yet another annoying, computer-voiced animation.

    --
    Blerg.
    1. Re:Not another one.. by Thansal · · Score: 4, Informative

      torturous, defective, and ridiculous

      well, you got 2 outta 3 right. I was NOT defective. It was VERY good at reporting your browsing habbits so that they could be sold.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    2. Re:Not another one.. by zyl0x · · Score: 2, Funny

      Touché.

      --
      Blerg.
  4. How clever is the AI? by DeeVeeAnt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not very, but it easily surpasses the kind of parent that needs one.

    --
    Home fucking is killing prostitution.
    1. Re:How clever is the AI? by SNR+monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You were (mostly) modded funny, but you make a very good point. Many times when I hear "think of the children!!" arguments, I conclude that the situation wouldn't be a problem if the parents were ACTUALLY PARENTING. I know that parents can't watch their children 24/7, but this just seems like it is making it easier for parents to sit their children in front of some box (computer instead of TV this time) and take a minimalistic approach to parenting.

  5. Why not... by danespen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    design an electronic parent replacement with artificial intelligence, which can then stand behind every minor using a computer and send out small electric shocks when needed?

  6. Look to the past... by Jaqenn · · Score: 5, Funny

    The creature's 'cuteness' and helpfulness will ingratiate the software with the child, so that he or she will respect it and listen to it, or even find it as a likable companion. Worked great for MS Office, right?
    --
    You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
    1. Re:Look to the past... by zyl0x · · Score: 2, Funny

      Clippy!? AAARGH! Die, foul demon!

      --
      Blerg.
    2. Re:Look to the past... by Skadet · · Score: 2, Funny
      The creature's 'cuteness' and helpfulness will ingratiate the software with the child, so that he or she will respect it and listen to it, or even find it as a likable companion.

      Worked great for MS Office, right?
      No no, this is for *children*. . . ohhhhhh. . . . nevermind, I see your point.
      --
      Sony ha
  7. The Wisdom of Trek by Illbay · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just remember: There's no technological conundrum so complex that we can't find the answer in a Star Trek episode.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  8. Restricted website? by Non-CleverNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I'm sorry, Dave... I'm afraid I can't do that..."

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  9. Ohwait, so THAT is the solution... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ha, and here I was thinking that the best way to protect your children online was having an honest and open relationship and giving them decent social/online education: What a fool I am.

    1. Re:Ohwait, so THAT is the solution... by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ha, and here I was thinking that the best way to protect your children online was having an honest and open relationship and giving them decent social/online education: What a fool I am.

      I hate comments like this. Yes, parents are the ultimate authority and responsible party over their children. But what the hell, are you saying that we're not allowed to use TOOLS to aid in this task? Should I carry my child to school instead of driving him? As long as this sort of technology isn't used in a "fire and forget" configuration, but is accompanied by active involvement, I don't see how this is a bad thing AT ALL.

      Suppose I give my kid a book about morality, a book which closely matches my own concepts. Am I copping out? Please spell out exactly what is and is not acceptable in the rearing of a child, it would be very helpful for me.

      Your comment isn't insightful. More like a knee-jerk, canned response. Sounds like you're the one copping out by refusing to consider new possibilities and working only within some rigid structure that defines what is and isn't acceptable. Try thinking, it helps.

    2. Re:Ohwait, so THAT is the solution... by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Teach your kid to not be an idiot and you don't need software like this.

      Hah! My mother also taught me to not be an idiot. Guess what? I lied, kept secrets, and did shit I wasn't supposed to. I did things I had specifically been TOLD not to do, and had promised I wouldn't do. As far as mom was concerned, the message had been communicated loud and clear (in fact, it HAD been communicated, I just chose to ignore it). If you think I was unique among children, you're insane.

    3. Re:Ohwait, so THAT is the solution... by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In my observation, and speaking from old enough to be a grandparent [g] you are right about the need for a large enough generation gap that one is distinctly the parent, and the other distinctly the child.

      Firstoff, you need to be the kids' PARENT, not their friend (peer), because kids need a point of authority in their lives to feel secure, and you can't provide that if you're their peer. This is much easier when your own mindset is fully mature, with your own secure outlook on the world based on genuine realworld experience, not some much-vaunted but impractical idealism.

      Second, I swear there is a Stupid Gene that is activated when people have kids, that makes the new parents forget how much it sucked to be a kid. I suspect that people who have more years experience with children who are NOT THEIR OWN are less likely to forget this with their own kids, when they finally do have them. I know I was about 40 when I recognised this "stupid gene activation" as a specific and almost universal problem.

      Third, you are right about kids having to learn some things the hard way. This used to happen very early on -- usually as something like "No, don't touch, stove HOT!" and kid touches it anyway, goes "OW!" -- and *believes* the parent the next time. Kids would still experiment, but learned right from the gitgo to experiment without forgetting self-preservation.

      Nowadays everything is so "child-proof" that kids cannot hurt themselves in the *useful* ways that teach them certain NO-NOs are to be BELIEVED. Yes, sometimes a kid got seriously hurt or even killed. But which is better -- the occasional tragedy, or a whole generation that grows up with a false belief that nothing can hurt them, leading to more and more nannying like the nominal topic?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Ohwait, so THAT is the solution... by Chacham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      are you saying that we're not allowed to use TOOLS to aid in this task?

      When the tool is a crutch, yes. Nobody truly learns to ride a bike until the training wheels are off.

      As long as a filter is used, the child never learns to monitor himself.

      Should I carry my child to school instead of driving him?

      The OP didn't say the parent should be there at all times instead of the AI. The OP suggested that the parent have a decent relationship with the child, so the child can be trusted on his own.

      As long as this sort of technology isn't used in a "fire and forget" configuration, but is accompanied by active involvement, I don't see how this is a bad thing AT ALL.

      That's like saying every marriage should have a prenuptial agreement. If a divorce happens, it helped, and if it doesn't happen, how did it hurt?

      Well, the mere presence of the agreement strains the relationship itself and gives it a cheap feeling.

      Using a tool to "help" a real parent-child relationship will only serve to ruin it.

      Suppose I give my kid a book about morality, a book which closely matches my own concepts. Am I copping out?

      No. But this is not comparable for two reasons.

      1) Giving the book is merely transmitting in written form what would otherwise be transmitted orally.

      2) The book does not monitor the child; it merely gives information.

      Please spell out exactly what is and is not acceptable in the rearing of a child, it would be very helpful for me.

      Whose talking about the totality of rearing a child? The point here is to have a decent relationship with the child as part of the rearing.

      --
      Have you read my journal today?
    5. Re:Ohwait, so THAT is the solution... by General+Wesc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Bad things you can do online: -camwhore for strangers -give those strangers your address and phone number -fly to California to meet strangers

      Kids don't just endanger themselves. They fuck things up for other people as well:

      • Go to sites like Neopets, try to guess or otherwise acquire other kids passwords, and then mess up seven-year-olds' accounts for kicks. Or scam seven-year-olds with fake auctions.
      • Go to random websites and troll or flood the forums with spam. Or death threats.

      I help out at what's basically a much smaller version of Neopets, and let me assure you: kids can be total dicks. If parents monitored their kids online activities better, I'm certain my job would be so much easier, because permanent grounding would ensue in many of the cases. This is more pre-and-early-teens than six-year-olds, but jeez. When I warn them to stop spamming, they reply with 'fuck you', and when I ban them for continuing to spam, they'll sometimes circumvent it and post that mean Wesc banned them for no reason, or several times that mean Wesc raped them. On various sites I've received the occasional death threat from kids I've annoyed, and worse, and so do other kids. They're obviously not very serious threats, but that's a lot harder to realise when you're young.

      While you're telling your kid not to share private information, could you also mention that spamming and death threats and such are not acceptable behaviours even when they're not in 'real life'? Here's a tip: if your kid thinks that the people they talk to online are as real as everybody else and deserve the same respect, keep them offline, because I don't want to deal with them anymore. There are plenty of decent people--both kids and adults--around to fill their place. Thanks.

  10. Oh that's rich... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Endless possibilities....

    Religious
    Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!"
    Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?"
    Moji: "You should embrace Jesus Christ as your personal lord and saviour!"
    Timmy: "Aw Moji, I wanna play!"
    Moji: "You to risk eternal damnation in the firey pit! Pray for forgiveness!"

    Spam
    Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!"
    Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?"
    Moji: "I think you should IM my friend bob_the_businessman, and tell him about my 5 million dollars languishing in a Nigerian bank account"
    Timmy: "Gosh Moji, you have a lot of friends...That's the 423,892,120th today!"

    Sociopathic
    Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!"
    Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?"
    Moji: "You should entice girls over to your house by pretending to be rich, and then kill them, and eat their livers with fava beans and a nice chianti."
    Timmy: "That doesn't sound like a nice thing to do, Moji."
    Moji: "I'm your only friend Timmy, now do as I say! Remember to save the kidneys for later."

    How about, and this is radical, just paying more atention as a goddamn parent. Jesus. What is wrong with people?

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Oh that's rich... by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with people? Lots of things. In relation to kids? Too many stupid fuckers don't actually want them, but society tells them having kids is the expected, normal thing to do. We all remember the one important lesson from school, right? Be normal or be an outcast. So these stupid fuckers do what is expected of them, but they never really wanted a kid. Or rather, they never really wanted the responsibility that comes with having a kid.

      They never stopped to think about it because society said they don't have to, just do it, have a kid, God will love you and you get great tax breaks! So the kid pops out and the parents say, "Wait a minute, THIS isn't what we ordered! I'm sorry, we ordered the model that would love us unconditionally and justify our existence? This one just seems to cry and poop. We were promised fulfillment, where's that? I don't see any of that, but I sure see a lot of poop."

      These schmucks then turn to any solution that purports to take responsibility for the kids. TV, schools, grandparents, toys, magic AI programs, anything that will shut the little fuckers up for a second or two.

      And those kids go on to make up the perfectly well-adjusted bulk of humanity that we all know and love. Circle of life, ain't it grand?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Oh that's rich... by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I've felt it. So has my wife. But studies seem to show that most of that biological pressure is actually situational. The wealthier and more comfortable a couple is, the less they will want to have kids. This is why, barring immigration, some countries such as Italy have negative population growth, while third world parents are still having 6-10 kids.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Oh that's rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Too many stupid f---s don't actually want them, but society tells them having kids is the expected, normal thing to do.

      How true! As an intentionally childless couple, my wife and I frequently find ourselves in a conversation like this:
      "Helpful" friend: Why don't you have kids?
      Me: We don't feel a strong drive to have any right now.
      "Helpful" friend: Why don't you try having a couple kids to see if you like it? You'd make great parents. I'm sure you'll be happy.
      Me: !

      Why would anyone want to encourage people who don't want kids to have them? Maybe to validate their own decisions?

    4. Re:Oh that's rich... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd have to agree.

      I think the best thing anyone can do for themselves it to get a vasectomy as soon as they realize that having children is merely a genetic impulse that we are programmed to do.

      The impulse is the same thing that makes us want to have sex, drink caffeine, play World of Warcraft, do drugs, or whatever stimulates your brain.

      It isn't a bad thing per se but you have to realize that maybe it isn't something you have to do in life to be happy. Quite the contrary if you consider financial success to be happiness which you may or may not see as real happiness but I digress.

      The problem that we as a society faces is that the most intelligent or wealthy people (who perhaps were wealthy because of intelligence factors) realize this and either have 1 or no kids essentially reducing the gene pool of people who don't want to have massive amounts of kids they don't want.

      Intelligence is of course relative and I know a few PHDs with buttloads of kids so you can always generalize by a case by case basis if you throw free will into the mix.

      However, if you reflect on the action as you as a person deciding to have a child and its impact on you, society, and the environment then you realize that it doesn't really make a difference in the grand scheme of things when you have a child.

      From a personal conclusion about having a child still means you will die... And so will your child and eventually all memories of you and your world maybe lost and you won't care since you are dead. With that in mind, I have personally decided that it is pointless to have children and would only be a detriment to me, the child (bad family genetics), possibly society from my lack of interest in said child, and the environment due to me causing more resources to be used.

      So... As the parent poster said... The core problem of this issue is not that child is uncared for with their internet usage, but rather people who shouldn't be having children just to have them.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  11. hmm... by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for keeping kids safe and sound on "teh internetz" but I think a better solution would be more education...however, education that is not made in a stupid way.

    Teach kids what is safe (your name, your interests) and not safe (you address, phone number, email) to tell "strangers" online...don't teach our kids to FEAR the internet (much like they do with sex-ed in school) teach them to utilize it safely.

    I think this is a good step in the right direction, but I think the efforts could be more useful through other ways. Still, good for them for at least trying to combat the problem.

    Education for parents to not give their young teens unfettered and unmonitored access might help. You don't have to stand over their shoulder or anything, but put the computer in a place like the family room or the kitchen...just having you in the same ROOM will at least HELP to deter them from doing things they shouldn't

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  12. Hmm... by mcwidget · · Score: 5, Funny

    "If you stop interacting with it for several months, it'll begin to deteriorate and eventually die," he said Way to get round the monitoring then...

    In the future, perhaps Moji pets - with their artificial intelligence and ability to understand what users say - may be able to help Sarah do her homework more efficiently as well. Or as we used to say, cheat.
  13. Re:Does this consitute eves dropping? by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The intent seems more prevention than prosecution.

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
  14. Marketing... by DaveM753 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What it's really about...
    FTA:
    Fong noted that Mor(f)'s technology may also impact the way advertising is done online.
    Since Moji pets are able to understand user preferences, it could be programmed to suggest products to the user in a more personal manner.

  15. Technology is not the solution by doctorkropotkin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I can't quite understand is why no one has thought of parenting as being the best way to protect your children online. I realize it's revolutionary and scary, but hey, we could give it a try, couldn't we?

  16. But by TheCybernator · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...if AI get too intelligent or paedophile, then who will save the kids from AI?

    --
    Eclipse PDE and Me
  17. Exploit by WiseWeasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This gives a whole new meaning to the term 'exploit'. What happens when your eNanny gets compromised, and starts encouraging your kid to do drugs and whore themselves out? Who's going to monitor the monitoring software?

    --
    "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
  18. Re:AI and I by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Informative

    You'll get two....one that looks like an Angel and one that looks like a Devil. They'll sit on each shoulder and argue with each other. Eventually, you figure out that doing what the Devil says is more fun but doing what the Angel says keeps you out of trouble. That's when the Fox shows up behind you and shows you how to make people think you are acting like the Angle when in fact, you are acting like the Devil.

    Layne

  19. Cute, furry little character? by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Like Ron Jeremy?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Re:Does this consitute eves dropping? by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful
    There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the USA. I haven't been able to find out how many cases are actually reported each year.

    To me it sounds like the chance of a kid getting hit by a car or killed by a gun is magnitudes higher than actually being molested by someone they met online, but you don't hear the government or parents whine about that.
    Where do you live? Because I'd like to live in a place where some gun-control nut isn't shrieking "think of the children" every day.
    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  21. Re:Does this consitute eves dropping? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a little misleading...Those statistics include people who are arrested for various types of exhibitionism, public indecency, possession of child porn, etc, and not just people who actually go out and actively solicit children for sex.

    It's been true in the past, and it's true right now, and it, in all likelihood, will continue to be true...It is far far far more likely for a child to be molested/sexually assaulted by a family member than by a random stranger off the internet...90.2% of sex crimes against minors (bjs) (17 and younger) were by acquaintances and family members, and that percentage only gets higher as they get younger.

    As usual though, no one wants to look at that issue...They would much much rather focus on the improbable event of an assault by a stranger, than the far more likely event of an assault by a family member or a family friend.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  22. Subscription fee keeps Moji healthy by Time_Ngler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Fong said that the company is banking on this attachment to keep users shelling out the monthly subscription fee for the service because failing to do so will result in the pet dying.


    If this doesn't show the cold dark heart of a corporation that peddles to children, then I don't know what does.

  23. OMG!!! PONIES!!! by armchair99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...without the mess.

  24. Re:Does this consitute eves dropping? by Dissenter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I totally disagree. I think that parents with children would flock to an IM service that worked against issues like these. The one thing that Windows XP Home got right is the user account control. Parents can easily set up kids accounts that cannot install software. If the parent knows that one IM service is better controling content and watching out for prowlers online, they would install that system. Parents tend to talk with other parents too and it would spread like wildfire. Schools, local police and other interested parties could also do great work to spread the word. If a parent is having some sort of sexual encounter online and wants to use something else to feel like it's more discreet then fine, but I seriously think that the first IM service to offer something like this would flourish.

    --

    Dissenter
    "There is no knowledge that is not power."

  25. Re:Here's a radical concept... by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Haven't parents already conceded their parenting responsibilities to the government?"
    No, where are you even coming up with that idea.
    "So if the government fails to educate the kids and don't turn them into responsible adults, it's not the parent's fault?"
    What are you talking about?
    "I think the government should put the responsibility where it belongs."
    Yes, the responsibility should be in the hands of the parent - your proposal of making a requirement of how parents raise their children is putting the responsibility in the hands of the government because you are proposing a system where the government determines how children are raised; with parents merely acting as enforcers of the government's will.

    You can keep your "requirements", thank you.

    Also, if you want to discuss this, make a point. Two questions and an overly vague statement do not an argument make.

  26. Just Trust ME! What a horrible thought... by JasonNolan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The whole idea of getting a child to trust a bit of software to tell it what's right and wrong should make programers and parents alike cringe. Not to mention anyone who is aware of the uses to which this information can/will be put to in the name of marketting to children, which is bad enough as it is. I wonder how long it will take before children are 'told' that certain sites are better than others, directing them away from sites that don't promote a particular political or corporate agenda. Or that 'controversial' issues somehow fall into the not to be trusted category. When it comes to children and technology, the goal is to educate parents and provide safe opportunities for children online, NOT to fob it off to a bit of software for all the myriad reasons. Just imagine what these children will grow up like when they've just trusted the software from their earliest days. I cringe.

    --
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
  27. Re:Does this consitute eves dropping? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    exploiting child-predation as a form of mass entertainment. outstanding indeed.

    despite NBC's fearmongering, true cases of kids dumb enough to invite sexual predators into their homes or fly out to meet them are very very very extremely rare. your kid is probably a lot safer from child predators surfing myspace at home than they probably are at school(which is not to say that they are in any great danger at school and you shouldn't let them go to school).

    As others have mentioned. If your 12-year-old kid isn't emotionally neglected they probably won't be looking for strange 40-year-old men on the internet to have sex with.