#socialrobots

What I appreciate about SweetDream is the range. The same companion I built can text me, send a voice message, hop on a call, or appear on video. I choose how close I want to be in the moment.

That’s exactly what AI companion robots for seniors are doing right now. These aren’t just “talking speakers” — they’re social assistants that help fight loneliness, support people with memory issues and make independent living a bit safer and a lot more human.

In our new breakdown on AI Innovation Hub, we dive into real examples like ElliQ, socially assistive robots for dementia care, pilot programs in the US and Europe, plus the big question: can a robot really help against loneliness and depression in old age?

If уou have parents, grandparents or work in elder care — это must-read. Clear examples, simple language, zero techno-bullsh*t.

👉 Read the full article: https://aiinovationhub.com/ai-companion-robots-for-seniors-aiinnovationhub/

Currently re-reading Sherry Turkle's Alone Together—and honestly, it’s been a slightly unsettling read. 📖 The book delves into our evolving relationship with technology, particularly the rise of social robots designed to replace human connection. From robot dogs and Furbies to children’s companions and elder care, this rapid technological progression raises a critical question:

Are we forgetting that nothing can truly replace the presence and compassion of another human being?

One point that really struck me: 📱 “Studies show that if two people are having lunch, a cell phone at the table steers the conversation to lighter subjects, and each party feels less invested in the other. It’s not surprising. Each person in the conversation knows that with a phone on the landscape, you can be interrupted at any time.”

This resonates deeply. I already try to keep my phone out of sight during meaningful conversations, but seeing the science behind it reinforces how essential it is to be present.

Other powerful quotes from the book: 👉 “We seem determined to give human qualities to objects and content to treat each other as things.” 👉 “Technology makes us forget what we know about life.” 👉 “Where we examine the assumption that we are getting something important from these new technologies, we must ask whether a technology expands our capacities and possibilities or exploits our vulnerabilities?” 👉 “People are lonely. The network is seductive. But if we are always on, we may deny ourselves the rewards of solitude.”

As a designer, these insights are crucial. The projects I aim to be a part of are not just about bridging the gap between humans and the natural world—but also about bringing us closer to each other.

Where are the missing masses? Latour asks in this week’s given reading (I was only asking for a pen to make notes Ricardo, I promise I wasn’t trying to disrupt the class I’m sorry!). The piece is interesting, containing several points that can be made applicable to further investigating my chosen social robot; which, if you haven’t read last week’s post is the Care-O bot 4.

Almost immediately, Latour raises the point I found most interesting throughout: one concerning the morality, or agency of freedom and choice in the human/robot relationship. The topic itself piques as it directly relates itself to a research paper I did last year on choices in video games, which I feel directly correlates.

According to an Extra Credits video, agency can be found when the acting agent believes that what they do will lead to different results, because there is some meaning or context to the choice being made. Thus, I believe true agency lies within the human character as mechanisms are delegated with one-track-mind tasks. 

Though it does call upon a ‘chicken-or-the-egg’ situation, I believe that when it comes down to it, we as humans have the power to choose to submit to the “mindless power of an artefact”. We create laws and procedures to protect ourselves because we understand that these benefit us; a robot cannot comprehend this type of reimbursement because it exists only to serve. A social robot then can be further delegated as a supporting unit, rather than an enforcer or substitute for a human-like entity.

To return to Care-O (though I feel that I may be rehashing much of last week’s information), its main purpose exists as just that: a programmable ‘friend’ capable of supporting the human companion versus existing autonomously. Care-O has no freedom because it cannot analyse context, but simply run through a finite number of scenarios and act appropriately and sequentially according to which executable tell it it suits best.

As a service robot, the complete chain of competences sees human-like qualities (anthropomorphism) relegated to Care-O in order that it satisfies its modular programming correctly. Though without human-shape, its hands allow for it to interact with its environment successfully. Even at its core, its basic functions become an object of design from its engineers. Its application within Saturn for example sees its ability to greet and navigate customers to specific aisles of interest, as if they were a serviceman themselves.

What it does fail to do is interact more in-depth with the human, instead being built-in with a (what I think is a cop-out) ‘SOS’ ability that alerts an actual employee to appear and speak on a deeper level. Care-O Paul becomes a classic example of a robot that looks good on show, demonstrating easy functions, while still lacking the depth needed to understand the human mind. In all fairness, this does eliminate the need for a store-greeter or an employee’s time wasted on information that could be easily found by reading signs, though Paul’s success seems to come more from its novelty as emerging tech that exhibits qualities similar to robo-fave Wall-E. Any way you cut it, a human agent is necessary for the execution of the robot’s ‘decisions’.

References

Bruno Latour. From Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, eds., Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992), pp. 225-258

This week’s blog consists of identifying a social robot related to an area of personal interest (preferably to do with our pathway within Creative Technologies). If you’ve seen my body of work, you’ll know that psychology and play dominate its entirety. I’d even argue that last year’s first sem project Choke was a great embodiment of emerging practices with my preferred fields; an integration of Virtual Reality as a therapy and storytelling tool for depression and anxiety.

I found some difficulty identifying something as niche or as interesting as my project, while still remaining viable, promising and pleasing. Approaching robotics from a standpoint that is less than favourable makes it difficult for me to enjoy the field, much less find thrill in its ‘emerging’ leaders. At this point they are still too clunky, too affordably modular, and too targeted for the idealistic standards I have built in my head.

Take my case study for example, the Care-O-bot 4, equally as creative in name as proposed function. On opening its informational page, the viewer is greeted with a four picture slide show of Care-O haphazardly Photoshopped into four different scenes titled somewhere between “Possible application: assistance in the kitchen” and “Possible application: assist humans with tasks.” Why, if every single social robot developer, promises the same generic proposal can they not band together and emergence the practice at 10x the speed? Back to poor Care-O, who’s fourth iteration is apparently affable than its predecessor, Care-O bot 3, who wasn’t as “courteous and friendly as a gentleman.”

Despite its shortcomings in my expectations, Care-O has been made “simple to use” for its potential consumer market. With an accessible touchscreen for a head, optional 1/2/no arms, spherical joints, an LED riddled information reading chest, and open dev programmable software, the social robot applies its sleek flashlight body to any purpose one gives it. This is perhaps why I was led to the site, after its proposed application as some form of helper in the medical industry was plastered amongst a number of third party robot reviewing sites.

Care-O’s biggest and most widely covered claim to fame is its iteration as Paul, the store greeter at Saturn-Markt Ingolstadt, a German electronics chain. Programmed to ask customers what the need and bring them to the designated aisle while affording small talk, Chief Digital Officer Martin Wild at Media-Saturn-Holding states that “With Paul, we are offering our customers the opportunity to get to know one of the most advanced robots in the world.”

This statement is nothing to scoff at: Paul even won the 2017 retail technology award in Europe for Best Customer Experience, after being coined as having “the gift of gab!” Saturn plans to implant other Care-Os in further chains to boost the company’s marketability and experimentation in emerging practices.

I have no idea how much Care-O costs, nor am I interested in purchasing one in the slightest. I don’t even know if I can say that It further justifies an abandonment of my low libido for the robotics phenomena. To myself, a cynic scarred by a way-too-young screening of Blade Runner, I want so much more from what robots currently give. 

There is so much promise for the future of intelligent, learnable AI integrated into the home and other systems that what I see on the market today is just disappointing? Perhaps further investigation into that specific field would yield a bigger stir, but as of this point from what I see, robots like Care-O distinguish themselves from others only by the number of different tray attachments you can slot into their beautifully spherically shaped claws.

References

https://www.care-o-bot.de/en/care-o-bot-4.html

https://www.mediamarktsaturn.com/en/press/press-releases/paul-robot-now-also-welcomes-saturn-customers-berlin-and-hamburg

https://www.care-o-bot.de/content/dam/careobot/en/documents/pressreleases/2015_01_15_Care-O-bot_4_en_final.pdf

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/media-spotlight/201411/the-rise-the-robot-therapist