Intel CTO Says Future Phones Will Sense Your Mood

An anonymous reader writes "Ultra-smartphones that react to your moods and televisions that can tell it's you who's watching are in your future as Intel Corp's top technology guru sets his sights on context-aware computing. Chief technology officer Justin Rattner stuffed sensors down his socks at the annual Intel Develop Forum in San Francisco on Wednesday to demonstrate how personal devices will one day offer advice that goes way beyond local restaurants and new songs to download. 'How can we change the relationship so we think of these devices not as devices but as assistants or even companions?' he asked."

Comments

Can it sense emotions?

[acnicklas]

Will it show calming pictures on the screen while I'm raging at customer service?

Re:Can it sense emotions?

[BonquiquiShiquavius]

Funny thing is, I would be happier if it concerned itself less with my current emotional state and more ensuring it just worked as it should. Considering the complexity of emotions and how differently people react to said emotions, I can't see how this could be implemented to anyone's satisfaction

Re:Can it sense emotions?

[JoeCommodore]

One Intel Tech to Another....

"Damn, still only seeing only Frustration, must be a glitch in the software..."

Long Past Ridiculous

[DarkKnightRadick]

We have gone long past ridiculous in what we are having our "phones" do (and why do we even bother to call them phones anymore). Sheesh. A mood phone? I thought mood items went out in the 80s.

great idea

[monkyyy]

"phone call from 'grandma', mood 'horny', press here to accept call"

Answer

[dissy]

'How can we change the relationship so we think of these devices not as devices but as assistants or even companions?' he asked."

Put me in control of what it does, what info I see, and what info it shares with whom, and I might call it a personal assistant.

As long as the control remains with the media companies, it is a spam assistant plain and simple, and it's only goal is to aid in selling my eyeballs off to the highest bidder for someone's profit.

I say the answer is simple, I just don't think they want to hear it or care about implementing it in that way.

Re:Answer

[EdIII]

How can we change the relationship so we think of these devices not as devices but as assistants or even companions?

I had a simpler answer, best illustrated by the following:

Two men were coming back from the mountains after 6 months of panning for gold. After settling up, getting some drink and fine ladies of the hour, they began purchasing provisions to go right back to work on their claim.

Towards the end the shopkeeper winked at them and said, "I think you boys have forgot these...". In their hands were two planks of wood, which each a hole lined with the softest deer fur. Not much else needed to be said and the two men were on their way.

6 months later the shopkeeper was laying out provisioning for one of them and asked, "say where's your friend?". The man replied, "Bastard took my plank one night, so I kilt him".

The moral of the story is that if we want to have a more emotional connection with our devices we might want to start figuring out how to get blowjobs from them. At that point, I would say we would be pretty damned attached to them.

 

Re:Great

[Macgrrl]

The Encyclopaedia Galactica defines a robot as a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With."

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent

Not this shit again....

[ArcadeNut]

Didn't we already learn that computers suck at context?

Clippy anyone?

That's right I used the "C" word!

Out of touch

[iONiUM]

I think this is another example of how C-level execs are out of touch with what people actually want. Nobody wants a phone that won't answer phone calls because it believes it senses you're angry and doesn't want you to say something you'll regret.

Seriously, we don't want AI in our fucking phone. This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of disconnect, and it certainly won't be the last.

...stuffed sensors down his socks...

[John Hasler]

I can suggest other places for him to stuff his sensors. ...But then, I might also suggest that he get off my lawn.

Mood?

[Strange Ranger]

My mood does not reflect the list of things that I need to get done.

When I can ask my phone, just by talking into it, to schedule a meeting, invite certain people, then comb the news to see if traffic will a be worry tonight, and also send my wife a text message apologizing for being late, then report back when it's done, THEN I'll have a digital assistant. Software has barely tapped the ability to serve us with the input we're already giving it. Adding bio-sensor input and "mood detection" now is just a bell/whistle that isn't helpful to me. It's helpful to so many sales channels of which I am the target.

Now if we had these "real digital assistants" then mood awareness would be a true achievement. The text apology to my wife would make her smile lovingly while shedding a single tear.

But seriously, Intel should invest it's billions more into software. Fuel real demand for hardware rather than pimping out yet more bells and whistles.

I guess medical and fitness uses will be pretty advantageous.

Why change the relationship?

[houghi]

Why would I consider a non-living object as a assistant or a companion? It is an object.

Give it a chance

[gregrah]

There are technologies that we take for granted today that would have seemed preposterous only a few years ago. For example - if someone told me five years go that Google was working on technology to predict what I am searching for, and display the results before I can finish typing - my response would have been "I'll believe it when I see it". Now, after using real-time search for a week, I am sure there will be a time when I expect every search engine to deliver results in real time as I type.

I can understand being skeptical about the "mood sensing mobile phones" being discussed in this article. But to get all bent out of shape about a technology that doesn't even exist yet, and that you will not be obligated to use if it ever is created - I just don't see the point.

After thinking about this technology for a couple minutes, here's one potential use that I might like to see. If you're driving and listening to music at the same time, and the device senses that you are overwhelmed with information (you're lost, for example, and looking for a specific street) - it could lower the volume on your radio to help you think. Nothing earth shattering - just a simple incremental improvement over my car radio today, which is smart enough to raise and lower the volume based on my current speed (another example of a feature I never thought I needed, but appreciate, and will expect to have in any car I buy from now on).

I've seen enough negative comments on this subject. Are there any other positive uses that people can imagine?

Re:Give it a chance

[jheath314]

> I've seen enough negative comments on this subject. Are there any other positive uses that people can imagine?

There's a reason why the prevailing reaction to these sorts of technologies is negative... they tend to follow a paradigm of making the device "smart", when what most people actually want is for the device to be "obedient". The former tends to take control away from the user, with the device altering its behavior whether the user wants it to or not.

For example, whenever I remove the key from my car's ignition, the driver's seat moves back automatically (presumably to make it easier for an obese person to get in and out.) The "feature" annoys the crap out of me, and it became even more irritating when I once had stuff stowed behind that seat, which the seat proceeded to crush. I've tried to disable it, but it doesn't appear to be optional. I've had to adapt my behavior in where I stow things to accommodate the damn thing, rather than the other way around. It's not the end of the world, but it annoys me enough that I'd never buy another car with that "feature" again.

I don't want my phone to predict my mood, or second-guess me, or arbitrarily alter its behavior without me telling it to. I don't want my phone to be my companion... I want it to be my dutiful slave.