Unpopular Opinion

8130 readers

253 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

6. Defend your opinion

This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

technopagan@lemmy.world

Dremor@lemmy.world

There's a use case (and maybe a market) for the NEO robot, it's just not the one they're trying to sell it for. (pawb.social)

submitted 5 days ago by KoboldCoterie@pawb.social to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's been all over Lemmy, but if you haven't seen it, this is what I'm referring to.

They're promising autonomy in the future but right now, it's just controlled remotely by a human user. I don't think that's a problem, and in fact, is actually an ideal final method for a specific use case.

If you were alive in the 90s, you probably remember the commercials for LifeAlert, basically a wearable for elderly people that could be used to contact emergency services if (for example) they fell and couldn't get up. That's the actual use case for this robot - a new take on LifeAlert. Imagine an elderly person with mobility issues (or whatever) just having this thing in their home. No autonomous functionality, but with the ability for them to call on it to help with whatever tasks they need help with, at which point a human in a remote location could take control of it, perform the task, and then have it go dormant again. This could be anything from "I need help lifting this thing" to "Help me put away my laundry" to "I've fallen and I can't get up". Basically, imagine someone who otherwise would need to live in a nursing home or other assisted living facility instead being able to live independently, getting help as needed from a remote assistant via the robot in their home.

Economically, it would likely be expensive, but a single remote worker could connect to and operate potentially hundreds of these things over the course of a single shift, making it much more economical than a live-in assistant, and much more of an on-demand service. If the agent could talk to the end user through the robot it could even be used for simple assistance like tech support or help reading a medication bottle.

Obviously this still has (some of) the privacy issues the actual advertised use case does, but it's maybe preferable to not being able to get help when it's needed.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] notabot@piefed.social 2 points 5 days ago

I don’t understand the privacy issues.

Imagine having a camera and microphone in your house 24/7, with absolutely no guaratee about who is watching or recording you at any point. I realize that a mobile phone isn't far off that, but you can, at least, cover those.

It’s not like you don’t invite random people once in a while to clean your home

Even if you do have people like cleaners come to your house, it's at pre-agreed times, and when they've left, they've gone and can't continue to watch you.

So if we tolerate strangers cleaning our homes once in a while, why is it a privacy issue if strangers do the task through the robot...

As mentioned before, the cleaner leaves, but the robot can, and let's face it, will, monitor you 24/7. Worse, the OP's suggested use case requires the robot to monitor all the time in order to be ready to help. If a senior falls, they may not be able to call out loudly enough to be heard, so either the robot will need to folliw them, or their hone will need to be filled with microphones and cameras, making things even worse.

...while also training the AI in the future, for our benefit only?

You won't be training the AI for our benefit, you'll be training it for the benefit of the owners of companies like facebook, x, xAI and other's like them. That will nit end well, and certainly will not benefit society in general.