
Zora, the Robot Caregiver - daegloe
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/23/technology/robot-nurse-zora.html
======
funkaster
> "Nothing will ever replace the human touch, the human warmth our patients
> need"

I remember having discussions lasting several hours with my med-school (and
nursing) friends when I was at the Uni. They had the same feeling. I'm still
convinced that we can and prob should replace doctors (for some of their
tasks) with computers as soon as possible. For instance: given a set of
symptoms and some biological metrics, a computer (an expert system) could
provide a much accurate and un-biased diagnosis.

I always had the idea that in the future, "doctors" would be scientists that
would be researching and helping improve AI in the medical field, but the
front line would be robots/computers. At least, that's the future I would like
to live in ;)

~~~
0x8BADF00D
That’s the root issue, isn’t it. Is a simulation of something somehow inferior
to the real thing? I’m not quite so sure. In my experience, it has been
machines that have provided me with a certain kind of kindness and warmth that
no human could ever provide for me. A machine’s love would be unconditional.

~~~
tanzbaer
It would only be unconditional if you could program it without if/then
statements.

------
pacaro
If the “Zora” robot looks familiar, it’s because it is a rebadged SoftBank
(was Aldebaran) Nao[1] which have been around for a long time (I stopped
working in robotics in 2012 and they had been around for a while then)

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nao_(robot)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nao_\(robot\))

------
have_faith
> Families can visit only so much

Nothing against the robot but how do we fix the root cause of the problem?
that modern lifestyles dictate leaving very little time for close family
members.

~~~
msla
Changing that won't fix the fact some families just drift apart because
they're composed of individuals.

So I still see a role for those robots even in a hypothetical perfect world
where nobody's ever "forced" apart.

------
harigov
What kind of a social/economic system makes us invest in this when there are
billions of malnourished people willing to do something like this for close to
free? Why is it that we focus so much on engineering when a lot of problems
can potentially be solved using better social and political policies.

~~~
true_religion
Minimum wage laws mean you'd have to pay them more than a one time cost of
$18,000 which is the robot's price tag.

------
zeeed
The robot itself is actually NAO from Aldebaran (now Softbank Robotics):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nao_(robot)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nao_\(robot\))

Zora appears to be the platform/service provider that runs on Softbank's
robots.

------
sbilstein
A few startups (including mine) are trying to help with human interaction in
this space:

Papa (joinpapa.com): bring college students to seniors as short term
caregivers

Ayuda (ayudacare.com / I am the co-founder of this one): We connect seniors in
assisted living facilities with freelancers such as musicians, fitness
teachers, and more.

A VC with General Catalyst wrote a useful summary on eldercare startups:
[https://medium.com/@alerner_93836/disrupting-
eldercare-97454...](https://medium.com/@alerner_93836/disrupting-
eldercare-974546f85a2e)

------
gumby
An undermentioned issue is that a robot can provide privacy (or perhaps only
the semblance of it but still). My mother has talked about in-home care and
she would prefer a machine because she doesn't want someone in her home:
really she doesn't want to feel dependent. It isn't demeaning to her to have a
machine take care of things for her but to have a person do so would feel bad.

Machines can't do everything but people can't either.

------
Quarrelsome
I worry that if this succeeds and we lose the human connection to the patient
there exists a slew of problems as the infirm and those with dementia aren't
the best at asking for help beyond the immediate surroundings or questioning
the status quo. I'm thinking wrong pills, general error handling and worst
case: malicious compromise.

While its nice to see mild benefits I feel bittersweet about any successes
given that I feel a better solution to this problem is more human in nature.

~~~
howard941
The piece points out one positive interaction: A patient revealed to the
device/remote operator that her bruising was caused by falling out of bed. On
the other hand, the dementia patient is a less reliable witness than a
nannycam.

Having been in Zora's shoes for my mom I think Zora's got a long way to go,
and I fear that we'll get her anyway.

------
tlb
It's easy to think, as long as there are an even number of lonely people in an
area you can just pair them up and everybody can have companionship.

And yet, the world is full of buildings full of people, most of them lonely.
Or all watching TV instead of talking to each other.

Walking into a room full of lonely people and trying to make them all feel
less lonely is incredibly hard! There seems to be a shortage of people who are
good at it. It therefore seems like a reasonable thing to try automating.

~~~
magic_beans
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to simply teach people how to have
conversations with other people?

Social skills are just expected to develop naturally. But social grace and the
ability to have a good conversation with someone are SKILLS -- they need to be
learned and honed.

Before we start automating companionship, why don't we start teaching people
how to communicate with other people?

~~~
tlb
Parents, schools, churches, and society have been trying for 1000s of years.
So "why don't we start?" isn't the most useful question. Ask "why has this
perpetually failed?"

I think in this case, skills aren't the limiting factor. Most people have
them, but not sufficient motivation to overcome shyness and fear of rejection.
Education can teach skills, but not give people motivation.

~~~
rubidium
And have succeeded until relatively recently... technology isn’t the solution
to this.

------
skybrian
It seems like an expensive toy, but good entertainment. If the cost can be
brought down, it could bring joy to a lot of people's lives when they can't
have pets.

(But why call it a caregiver?)

------
JasonFruit
Upcoming models include Zora the Explorer and Zora, Warrior Princess.

Flippant answer aside, what this shows us is that confused, desperately lonely
people will grasp at even the most unsatisfying interactions. I don't think it
points to a useful direction in robotics or emotional care. (The article was
fairly clear on that at the outset, but seemed to ignore its own warning as it
progressed.)

------
croon
When robots are advanced enough to have rights, this might be a good idea.
What's next? We're spread to thin to take care of our kids so we put them in
the Raiselator 3000?

------
crimsonalucard
This isn't healthy. The robot will never provide an adequate amount of
companionship required by humans. Even children don't bond with these robotic
toys. The fact that elderly people are bonding with the machine is a sign of
severe loneliness and not a sign of successfully creating an android
companion.

I get the problem they're trying to solve though. Currently there's already a
solution in modern society that solves this issue though albeit comes with
it's own inconveniences... Dogs. Get these people dogs. If dogs can lead blind
people than they can take care of the elderly.

~~~
wild_preference
Not everyone can take care of a dog or wants to.

You even admit it ("inconveniences") yet immediately dismiss it.

~~~
crimsonalucard
Your point? Obviously not everyone can take care of a dog.

Also I admit to inconveniences, but when did I dismiss it?

If I admit to inconveniences it means I am trying to present a view that
covers both the downsides and the upsides.

I'll say one thing though. I'd rather have a human develop a friendship with a
dog then develop a friendship with a robot toy. One relationship is healthy
and humane the other is not...

------
artur_makly
Dogs from shelters are 100000% better IMHO.

~~~
linsomniac
I see two problems with this: old people are fragile and training dogs is
expensive.

I got a dog while my mother was in a nursing home. Additionally, my wife used
to work in an assisted living facility. We would bring the dog to visit both
of these, and everyone loved the visit... Except for me. It was nerve
wracking. I had to keep her on a very short leash, and pay attention every
second she was with an elder. In a heartbeat she can jump up or lean into
someone and take them to the ground. Seniors falling is a big deal, broken
bones or worse often happens.

And training a dog to be a service dog costs well into the 5 figures. I've
heard $40k for a fully trained service dog, it takes around a year to do. An
elder can probably be safe with something less, but I'd guess we're probably
still talking $10k.

My in-laws got a dog 18 months ago and they are taking her through some of the
service dog training and other training. My father in law has been out in the
hospital once by the dog, and has fallen numerous times while walking her
(sudden pulls or just getting mixed up in his feet).

