3 ms·

I think the idea of trapping human traits inside a mobile device will eventually be a dead end. The interface with the device should be based on the inherent na

I think the idea of trapping human traits inside a mobile device will eventually be a dead end. The interface with the device should be based on the inherent nature of the device, utilizing its size, shape, and hardware for sensory and spatial character and user dictated software for personality and habits. In this concept, you decide whether or not the device even talks. With vibration, LED pulse, audio, and video at your disposal, who knows what kind of interface works best? We seem to desperately want a 7 of 11 or whatever from Star Trek. Personally, i like the way that computers and devices interact with me, especially when it is on their terms. I know it is developed and implemented by humans, but devices acquire character over time.

krapp 13y ago
Part of the reason for mimicking human traits (particularly, in attempting to read and emulate emotional cues) is to generate empathy for a device[1]. Consumers who form emotional attachments to and converse with their devices, so that at a subconscious level, they're seen as other people and not mere things, are more likely to remain loyal to that brand, and to trust the content (or advertisements) that comes through it. It will be driven less by "Star Trek" idealism and more by subtle attempts at applied social engineering. Effects like the mirrors they've developed in Tokyo which tweak your reflection to make you look happier[2] because happier people shop more. [1]http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/20/should_ai_makers_be_legally_responsible_for_emotionally_manipulating_customers.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/20/should_ai... [2]http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/07/incendiary_reflection_mirrors_make_you_look_happier_than_you_are_so_you.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/07/incendiary_r...
- classicsnoot 13y ago
  I understand the empathy factor, but i believe it is misguided. The devices are not human; they never will be. Human, as a construct, is something that has developed over a long time based on physical constraints and chance. Applying the same logic, by choice, to devices is the point i am trying to discuss towards. I think a device that purrs when you plug it in, makes a sharp whine when you drop it, and uses its vibrations to communicate subtle emotional reflections [buzzing for a little longer when you pick it up after down time, getting excited in the morning and over clocking just a touch,etc] will generate empathy and attachment to devices. The smart phone is uniquely capable of transmitting a number of emotional reflections through a number of ways. The voice element is so basic; an automated slave that you constrain to human speech patterns. I think looking at the device as a creature then building interactions from there.

krapp 13y ago

Part of the reason for mimicking human traits (particularly, in attempting to read and emulate emotional cues) is to generate empathy for a device[1]. Consumers who form emotional attachments to and converse with their devices, so that at a subconscious level, they're seen as other people and not mere things, are more likely to remain loyal to that brand, and to trust the content (or advertisements) that comes through it. It will be driven less by "Star Trek" idealism and more by subtle attempts at applied social engineering. Effects like the mirrors they've developed in Tokyo which tweak your reflection to make you look happier[2] because happier people shop more. [1]http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/20/should_ai_makers_be_legally_responsible_for_emotionally_manipulating_customers.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/20/should_ai... [2]http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/07/incendiary_reflection_mirrors_make_you_look_happier_than_you_are_so_you.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/08/07/incendiary_r...

classicsnoot 13y ago
I understand the empathy factor, but i believe it is misguided. The devices are not human; they never will be. Human, as a construct, is something that has developed over a long time based on physical constraints and chance. Applying the same logic, by choice, to devices is the point i am trying to discuss towards. I think a device that purrs when you plug it in, makes a sharp whine when you drop it, and uses its vibrations to communicate subtle emotional reflections [buzzing for a little longer when you pick it up after down time, getting excited in the morning and over clocking just a touch,etc] will generate empathy and attachment to devices. The smart phone is uniquely capable of transmitting a number of emotional reflections through a number of ways. The voice element is so basic; an automated slave that you constrain to human speech patterns. I think looking at the device as a creature then building interactions from there.