In an Age of Robots, One to Clean the House? Still but a Dream

[Disinfo Agent]

As a counterpoint to samkent's Star Trek thread (maybe), here's an article in the NYT:

'Researchers are far, far from being able to design a Rosie Jetson or a Data, or even a Diaper Data. You can ask a human toddler to bring you the red ball from behind the sofa, and the toddler will comply. Ask a machine to perform the same seemingly ho-hum task? “We’re not even close,” said Seth Teller of M.I.T.'

This bit is inaccurate, though:

'Robots are involved in many everyday aspects of life, even if we don’t realize it.” The word comes from the Czech “robota,” meaning slave [...]'

'The word robota means literally work, labor or serf labor, and figuratively "drudgery" or "hard work" in Czech and many Slavic languages.' Wikipedia

[Moose]

I don't need a machine to retrieve balls from behind the couch. I have two cats only too happy to take care of that for me. What I need is a very quiet Rhoomba that won't freak my cats out on a daily basis.

[geonuc]

Roombas work surprisingly well.

Doesn't freak my cats out at all.

[Disinfo Agent]

I don't need a machine to retrieve balls from behind the couch. I have two cats only too happy to take care of that for me.

How about some robocats to retrieve the balls?

[Moose]

*grin* I saw a video the other day of a youngling cat riding the Roomba as it did its thing. The Roomba seemed to be turning and redoing the same spot(s) repeatedly because the cat's tail was dragging along behind it. I think it was seeing the tail as something it wanted to clean up.

[Moose]

How about some robocats to retrieve the balls?

Do robocats snuggle very well? I consider that a mission critical feature.

[KaiYeves]

We need a roomba at our house, but my mom says our dog would attack it. Well, you can't fight the future forever...

[PraedSt]

Housekeeping robots on stage

In Japan (where else?): Humans and robots acting together

The play, which had its première at Osaka University, is one of Japan's first robot-human theatre productions. The machines were specially programmed to speak lines with human actors and move around the stage with them.

The play, called Hataraku Watashi (I, Worker), is set in the near future. It focuses on a young couple who own two housekeeping robots, one of which loses its motivation to work.

In the play, the robot complains that it has been forced into boring and demeaning jobs and enters into a discussion with the humans about its role in their lives.

Next- robot unions?

[Frog march]

you just need to make a workaholic robot that does everything you ask it to and when there is no more, it goes out for the night with its buddies and picks up all the litter, and mends fences etc in the country side.


And when there is nothing left to do, it closes down and enters a matrix world of unending chores.

[jokergirl]

My Roomba is happily vacuuming the kitchen for me as I sit here and chat... I mean WORK! WORK!

[mugaliens]

Do robocats snuggle very well? I consider that a mission critical feature.

The purr is easy to duplicate, as is the warmth and the texture of the fur. To date, however, nothing beats the automatically adjusting kinematic features of felis catus.

[Ara Pacis]

As a counterpoint to samkent's Star Trek thread (maybe), here's an article in the NYT:

'Researchers are far, far from being able to design a Rosie Jetson or a Data, or even a Diaper Data. You can ask a human toddler to bring you the red ball from behind the sofa, and the toddler will comply. Ask a machine to perform the same seemingly ho-hum task? “We’re not even close,” said Seth Teller of M.I.T.'

I'm not sure why. It would seem a rather straightforward from a language parsing and coding point of view. Navigation is currently managed fairly well. The only real stumper would be physical object identification with verbal referant, which could be programmed in directly (via a library of objects) or learned through 3D archtype recognition program.

[mugaliens]

I'm not sure why. It would seem a rather straightforward from a language parsing and coding point of view. Navigation is currently managed fairly well. The only real stumper would be physical object identification with verbal referant, which could be programmed in directly (via a library of objects) or learned through 3D archtype recognition program.

I'm thinking the latter. And dispense with the visual recognition approach, unless absolutely necessary. Blind people do nearly everything sighted people do strictly by sense of touch and a knowledge of three-dimensional artifacts (cabinet, pan, stove-top...) combined with spatial awareness. Those are easily programmed into a computer-controlled robot. Armed with that, first, a visual subroutine would be additive, not not required in many circumstances.

[Damburger]

I think the desire for robotic domestic servants is slightly disturbing. People want things to get done but are too damn lazy to do anything themselves. Slavery isn't socially acceptable any more and servants costs money (so essentially you still have to do some work to get housework done, you just get to choose what). That leaves creating acceptable slaves.

Wanting without motivation to do what is necessary to fulfill your wants is a childish thing. An mature person would either get off their arse and help themselves, or through acts of will reduce their wants to a level more realistic given how much work you can do.

[Neverfly]

When given a choice between work and laziness, humans always choose laziness.

Why would someone want an automatic transmission?
I have asked many people that. Their answer is always the same.
"I get tired of shifting gears all the time."

Do they also get tired of pushing the stupid pedals?!
Apparently so- that's what Cruise Control is for.

How much effort does it take to shift gears?! Seriously!

Technology most certainly lifts the burdens. But we also seem to want to take things to extremes.
Robots can be a very good thing.
So can cars, fax machines etc.

And yet, here in the USA, we are so spoiled rotten, we remain mostly ignorant and get more and more obese.

[Moose]

People want things to get done but are too damn lazy to do anything themselves.

That's a fairly big assumption, and one I find at least somewhat offensive.

Actually, a roomba (or rather, a pair of roombas, one per floor) would do two things for me that have nothing at all to do with laziness.

My cats shed. A lot. It gets everywhere, and it's visible. I'd literally have to vacuum the house every day in order to keep up. I simply can't. There's too much else to do in a day (especially if we get another snow season like last year). If I have to pick and choose which chores are going to get done and which aren't, then there's room to improve how I get things done. I'd much rather spend time doing other things.

Second, as a prog, clever things that do pathfinding are very cool to me. I'd be content to have them so that my cats have fun getting rides.

Last. Should we go back to the "good old days" where monks and scribes would spend their lives manually duplicating and hand illuminating books for the rare few who could read and afford it?

You're using a computer to communicate. Are you too lazy to hand-post letters to all BAUT members? Or are you doing it because it's a genuinely better way of communicating?

We use machines to reduce effort, yes, but we do it so that we can direct our efforts to more productive/worthwhile/enjoyable tasks.

Besides, vacuum cleaners are labor saving devices too. We _should_ be using brooms. Oops, labor saving. Never mind. You need to be cleaning your house using only your own body parts and fluids, as nature clearly intented, or risk being thought of as lazy.

Where do you draw the line, and should one be drawn at all?

Okay, so most of this post is a slippery-sloped strawman. Sure. But comparing the use of an inanimate, non-sentient tool to slavery is both offensive and blatant hyperbole.

[Neverfly]

We ARE lazy, Moose.
Where does one draw the line of how much laziness is acceptable?
I would say when it's impractical to be lazy, yet people still do it. Even that is still fuzzy though.

[jokergirl]

Second, as a prog, clever things that do pathfinding are very cool to me. I'd be content to have them so that my cats have fun getting rides.

Just a minor nitpick, but the roomba doesn't do any pathfinding - it picks a random path and has a good idea of how big the room is judging by "time-before-bump", but it covering every spot in your room is a probability function, not an absolute
It does have a development kit for programmers and geeks though so if you want to poke at pathfinding you can.

The Elecrolux Trilobite does pathfinding, as do some others, but they're not NEARLY as fun to watch! (They go much slower and they leave a streak at the corners as they never bump into anything.)

And I'm all for not having to play an active part in housework except for emptying and cleaning the roomba occasionally. (And carrying it back to its crib if I locked it out by accident and it ran out of batt.)

[Moose]

Just a minor nitpick, but the roomba doesn't do any pathfinding - it picks a random path and has a good idea of how big the room is judging by "time-before-bump", but it covering every spot in your room is a probability function, not an absolute

Okay. I'm assuming it does, however, keep track of how to get back to his recharger and pathfinds back to it from time to time (unless you lock it out of its room)? Or is it guessing that too?

[jokergirl]

Okay. I'm assuming it does, however, keep track of how to get back to his recharger and pathfinds back to it from time to time (unless you lock it out of its room)? Or is it guessing that too?

It has an IR sensor that it uses to find the cradle and "walls" (beams of IR that mark lines it may not cross). It just homes in on the beam

[Moose]

So if it wanders into another room, it could potentially wander around lost until it faints?

[Ara Pacis]

I'm thinking the latter. And dispense with the visual recognition approach, unless absolutely necessary. Blind people do nearly everything sighted people do strictly by sense of touch and a knowledge of three-dimensional artifacts (cabinet, pan, stove-top...) combined with spatial awareness. Those are easily programmed into a computer-controlled robot. Armed with that, first, a visual subroutine would be additive, not not required in many circumstances.

Can you tell the color of something from touch? :-) gotta have some sorta visual system if you're gonna use chromatic recognition.

As to the slavery argument of robots, it's a non-starter. Simple machines do not have rights. The worst argument you'll get from a lever is a groan. We use machines to perform simpler tasks so that we, the highly programed biological machines, can engage in higher level tasks, like running space programs. Or should astronomers spend less time lazily sitting behind their telescopes and more time swatting carpets?

WRT to the "epidemic" of obesity, there's some suggestion that it is in part a result of poor dietary information and food industry misinformation.

[jokergirl]

So if it wanders into another room, it could potentially wander around lost until it faints?

Yup, but n my experience it usually ends up going back after a while unless it gets stuck in a small space.
The main problem for me is that it sometimes will drag around the base station when it tries to dock, so it will endlessly try to adjust/chase the station around the room until it faints.
Double sided tape and/or walls help.

[Neverfly]

Double sided tape and/or walls help.

Double sided walls?

[Neverfly]

WRT to the "epidemic" of obesity, there's some suggestion that it is in part a result of poor dietary information and food industry misinformation.

Well now... This one is novel.

I'll keep that in mind when observing how folks in technologically cushy areas are fat and folks not in technologically areas are not.

A curse upon those fiendish food manufacturers for lying to me!

[Moose]

Heh. Took a look at the electrolux one. $850 US. ...Yeah, I'll stick with chasing my own hairball dustbunnies around for now, thanks.

[Moose]

A curse upon those fiendish food manufacturers for lying to me!

There was a recent McDonald's ad that actually argued that their fries were healthy.

We bear ultimate responsibility for what we eat, of course, but marketers _are_ disseminating misinformation and/or outright lies. They're part of the problem. One society both has the right and the duty to address. Truth-in-advertising laws are not a legitimate hardship for these companies.

[mugaliens]

Technology most certainly lifts the burdens. But we also seem to want to take things to extremes.
Robots can be a very good thing.
So can cars, fax machines etc.

And yet, here in the USA, we are so spoiled rotten, we remain mostly ignorant and get more and more obese.

The other day, I walked out of work with three others, headed for lunch. As we were walking through the parking lot, they piled into one of their cars and said, "aren't you coming?"

"Sure," I said. "But it's right over there," and pointed to the restuarant. Surprisingly, they jetted away.

When they arrived, there I was, sitting at a table, and they couldn't believe that I'd gotten there ahead of them.

I measured my paces - it was 180 yards from work to walk there. I walked back along the road, and it was closer to 500 yards, at 15 mph, which doesn't count the three stop signs and one stoplight.

Lazy? Yep.

[Ara Pacis]

Well now... This one is novel.

Not really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fr...Health_effects

I'll keep that in mind when observing how folks in technologically cushy areas are fat and folks not in technologically areas are not.

Technologically cushy in what regard? Technologically induced food surplus (or increased energy density of food) or technologically reduced labor requirement? Since this thread is primarily about labor, I'll assume the latter. Studies suggest that exercise without changes in diet only produce low weight loss. (link) Thus, we may safely conclude that labor savings by robotic servants is less likely to cause obesity than diet. We can look up the caloric expenditures of housekeeping if you still want to argue that point.

A curse upon those fiendish food manufacturers for lying to me!

When it's in their best interests...
Pro-HFCS TV ad 1
Pro-HFCS TV ad 2

[Neverfly]

Not really:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fr...Health_effects

Technologically cushy in what regard? Technologically induced food surplus (or increased energy density of food) or technologically reduced labor requirement? Since this thread is primarily about labor, I'll assume the latter. Studies suggest that exercise without changes in diet only produce low weight loss. (link) Thus, we may safely conclude that labor savings by robotic servants is less likely to cause obesity than diet. We can look up the caloric expenditures of housekeeping if you still want to argue that point.



When it's in their best interests...
Pro-HFCS TV ad 1
Pro-HFCS TV ad 2

Nonsense. You post links and state your case- Nice... But you're misstating it.

Sure a ROOMBA alone is not going to cause obesity.
But factor in ALL the little luxuries of a technologically cushy society.
What is it that we do?
We sit around watching American Idol.
Then we go to the GYM and plop our fat butts on the treadmill for thirty minutes.
Then, after all that strenuous work, we get all hungry and hit the Jack in the Box Drive Thru.

It's a lifestyle.

We CAN. So we DO.

Your links don't answer to the basic question. Nor do your claims.