Shouldn't parents be doing this? If they're not, then why did they have a kid? The robot seems well designed, inoffensive, and the company's focus is well intentioned, but I can't help thinking that this represents a complete societal failure on so many levels.
Having a robot companion as an "impartial" third party may help kids work through issues they (feel like they) can't talk with their parents about.
For better or worse, parents are human beings, and (even unconsciously) may stigmatize behaviors or feelings that a child may experience, making it difficult for the child to bring up these issues with the parents.
There is also the case where children may be neurologically atypical in a way that makes interacting with other humans difficult. This is another opportunity for a robot to shine.
You're not wrong -- helping children develop social and soft skills does fall under the job description of being a good parent. But even parents with the best intentions may need help from time to time, and I would argue that a parent who can recognize the value in something like this (as a supplement, not a replacement for parenting) has the child's best interests in mind.
I would argue that this is larger than just parents.
As a society, this should be a common aim -- to 'socialize' our children.
Growing up, albeit not in the US, strangers would scold us kids for being noisy/bratty/destructive/etc. And our parents would be on the stranger's side, adding their two cents on top.
Can't imagine that today. IMO the loss of the freedom to treat your local neighborhood as one big, loosely connected family (as a child and adult) is one of the biggest reasons for increase in depression, anxiety and lack of social/soft skills. Another reason is that local neighborhoods are few and far between because of how we've structured our cities.
Really not even society can socialize anyone properly - they teach all sorts of insane lessons unwittingly, acting on long accepted pretenses completely separate from nominal goals, let alone effectiveness. And you're the crazy one if you point out what they are doing is utterly nonsensical because "that is just the way things are".
Not to snap at you but the neurologically atypical suggestion brings to mind the one offensive dehumanizing trope of autistic people of thinking of them as something inhuman to be forced to act "normal" instead of taking the step one of actually trying to understand them. I have such a sense of deja-vu that it certainly doesn't sound like the first daft attempts to try to use robots to "fix" them with no real thought how the hell that would work.
Thanks for your comment, it is a nice reminder to receive.
When I wrote the comment, I was remembering a coworker whose nephew had ASD, and could not process spoken word from his family well. They discovered that using the "say" command on an OSX Terminal to make the computer "talk" was something that did work for communicating, and the boy would listen to the computer's advice for when it was time for bed or time to brush his teeth.
It was not my intention to perpetuate dehumanizing stereotypes, so I apologize if it came across this way. Rather, I was trying to emphasize the positive impact of having more parenting tools in your metaphorical tool belt.
At the risk of sounding ignorant again, I would argue that good hygiene and sleep are habits that everybody should build, regardless of your neurological disposition :)
I want to agree with you, but in my case (complete lack of social skills, but I don't have a diagnose). I did tried and learned to "act normal", at least some strategies to act and comunicate as expected, and it's definitely useful. Still I want to agree with you as I remember how frustrating was to deal with family and society in general expecting me to act normal in a way that I didn't knew how.
BTW, my son actually has a mild ASD diagnosis, and well, I will try to help him not to feel bad about himself, but I also expect to help him get more social skills as I have seen first hand how useful they are.
That one offensive dehumanizing trope you bring up happens for all people that the mental healthcare professionals deal with as patients. I'm curious if you think people shouldn't be able to label an individual not normal and only the person in question should be the one to label themselves as not normal if it's dehumanizing?
Isn't that what stuffed animals are for? I see my kids interacting with theirs. If they had a robot I'd be worried it'd spit out some nonsense (due to a bug or malicious sabotage) that could traumatize the kid. Besides that, imaginative thinking is a very important part of development (as my OT wife says) so I'd hate to kill it with a know it all robot.
I agree that there may be specific use cases where this type of robot can help. My reaction is more to how it is portrayed in the video. The child appears to be depressed, with parents who show almost no interactive ability. I fear that this actually happens with increasing frequency, and that it represents a societal failure. Maybe we need these bots for the parents?
My anecdotal evidence based on my own kids (3 of them) is that despite having (empathetic) parents, siblings, grand parents, friends, pets, and more, they still sometimes find comfort in material things like a stuffed toy animals, blankets, or figurines. I see Moxie as an experiment in making a more interactive stuff toy rather than a replacement for living things, and I'd probably try the toy for a week if it was less than $200.
I agree that on the surface it seems like a pretty sad indicator of deeper societal issues.
But I can see it being very helpful for children with various social disorders like autism. I don't have personal experience with this, but what I hear from parents with children who have such issues, is that they try to socialize their kids, but at best other children distance themselves from them, at worst they get bullied and pushed away. There's a chicken and egg problem there. I think a robot that is infinitely patient, reinforces healthy interactions, and provides a level of emotional support can definitely help in jump starting positive behavior.
But at the same time, it has to be very accurate and perceptive in its interactions, otherwise it's obviously not a human, and might impede development in other ways.
Not so much parents, but one of the best thing to do is have kids play independently with other kids without supervision and have them resolve their own problems. Sure parents can offer advice, but we don't jump in and fix it for them. One of the best things about free range parenting...
A societal failure for a society that no longer exists, maybe. The world of the 80s, 90s & early 00s is gone. You can't let your children wander the neighborhoods, kids don't have rituals of social achievement with clear stakes, winners and losers, and the priority of society is shifting to move as much of your interaction online for data mining and profiling as legally (and otherwise) possible.
For many the first time they are "unsupervised" is legal adulthood, where college, military or employment forces social interactions in dimensions their young lives willfully resisted preparing them for. Why talk, when you can text?
That's definitely one aspect of child rearing that every parent is (or should be) involved in, but young children often feel like they have to prove themselves to their parents. The end result is that they're usually only willing to learn things from their parents at a very shallow level.
I've struggled with that aspect of child rearing with my 6 y/o since she was able to speak. She is far more willing to learn at a deep level from teachers than from us, even though her mother is an experienced elementary school teacher.
Sure, that would be the ideal. But a lot of parents either don't have the skills or the willingness to do it. My parents had neither and I struggled with social issues all the way from childhood up to early adulthood, until I accidentally found good resources and support.
Parents are not superheroes that know it all or can do it all.
Ideally, yes. But rather than focus on what parents should be doing, let's consider what parents are doing and how that affects the wellbeing of their kids. Should we give up on kids with bad parents, or should our society aim to diminish the impact of bad parenting?
This is a good question. I think the differences may lie in the perceived anthropomorphism and the difference that makes psychologically. Books, clothing etc are passive objects that utilize the imagination of the user in a definite way, whereas a talking robot with facial expressions taps into a specific set of neural/emotional cascades that, IMO, should be reserved for human interaction exclusively.
Not every kid has supportive, curious, playful children to interact with. If your kid's cohort are device-addicted bullies, then what?
Like a good school, good books and good food, I don't see how we can oppose carefully curated relationship experiences for our kids during important formative years.
However, to be honest, what we did was enroll the kids in Scouts. And participated fully (as Cub Leader, Cubmaster, Scout Leader and Scoutmaster over 20 years). Raised a whole cohort of kids to be supportive, cooperative, responsible and caring. And learn 100 skills. But it took a buttload of time and effort.
Why is this technology not also offered as a mobile app?
Seems like they could make it more affordable and available?
Instead of a $1500 upfront cost, it could be a no-contract subscription service.
It might be helpful for adults as well.
I think just the marketing of this will have a small impact as well. Soooooo many people don’t know how to meaningfully converse. Especially when it comes to their kids. Outside myself, I’ve never heard another parent add affirmation and gratitude to their language when talking to their kids. “Thank you for telling me about your day” is often “oh, that’s great honey” at 1/2 attention commitment and the difference is strikingly impactful over time for the kiddo.
I suppose I’m saying they need to have these as trainers for grown ups too.
Parents should educate their kids, regardless of any disorder. The disorder is actually allowing these solutions to replace the only thing that no one can give: your attention and love.
It was initially developed to help children with Autism... Stallone has a child on the spectrum and wanted to check it out... it's a pretty neat story.
Yes. But from what I'm reading here, the idea of a "Social Robot" doesn't seem to faze anybody -- not to mention that it will be "helping" children learn "social skills". OMFG.
This fazes the living daylights out of every intelligent human being except those tasked with spreading this morbid narrative as wide as they can for the buck.
Moxie, a Social Robot (err, invasive mobile app) that helps kids (err, anyone with money) with Social-Emotional Learning (gather data on your children).
This may not seem like it right away, but I believe it is a really big data point on a very important curve of the importance of computing devices in our lives. This topic is a bigger deal than it seems to be perceived as. The responses here are exactly what they should be to any huge development:
"why should this exist?"
"isn't this our responsibility?"
"this is the parents' fault"
"people should get this from their friends"
"think of the children!"
It sounds like how people concerned about radio, television, videogames, computers, and smart phones attacked those technological advances that carried with them huge societal impacts. While those may even be correct assessments and valid critiques, they are not effective arguments to stop use.
Conversational interfaces are not just a way to access information; they're a (perhaps horribly stilted) way to introspect and fulfill our basic need to socialize. We as a society often lament our lack of socialization and our increased isolation from each other, and the right answer here might be "prevent that isolation", but the easy answer may be "put a band-aid on it". This is a very powerful band-aid and a tough genie to put back into the bottle.
Imagine a world where you aren't lonely. You can talk to a variety of personalities about problems you have, about things you want to learn, about ideas and thoughts and fears. You can talk to something that's receptive, something that's combative, something that strives to motivate you, something that strives to soothe you. You could talk to a crowd of them, talk to them while playing games together, ask them about the news of the day, or anything. You can talk to someone new everyday, or one great friend for your entire life. They're always there and willing to listen, willing to engage. They never get angry at you or sick of you.
That kind of capability might save a lot of lonely people from taking a lot of horrible actions that are driven primarily by loneliness. It also sounds like a horrific dystopian rejection of our real, basic social bonds. But, maybe fixing those for real is a bridge too far!
Of course this specific product/idea is not "the thing" that brings those capabilities to the masses (it has pretty strong limitations), but it looks surprisingly polished and capable, and it's a very specific wedge into the space. It might get rejected today for being creepy (see: google glass), or it might get rejected for just not really being ready (see: google glass), and kids might just hate it. But we are clearly closer to that future world than we were six months ago.
Also, there are just so many consequential fallouts of this in the long run: consequence-free abuse of robot conversors may lead to pathological behaviour directed at "real" people, the goalposts for the turing test may shift widely in either direction, surveillance will mean something else entirely when everyone talks to robots all day, propaganda delivered via these could have unfathomably large effects, the addictive nature of these and the predatory behaviours this opens up to the makers of these agents, the value of socialization overall being regarded very differently by our children, the arguments parents will have with their kids over whether or not their "virtual friends" are real or matter or valid or valuable, what the value of human life itself is to us... it's a whopper!
I don't even worry about propaganda, but about advertising. Just imagine your best friend telling reminding you every morning to only buy Kellog's, because they have the taste of REAL CINNAMON.
