Hi, y’all! Welcome to the new subs and readers!
What about last week? A new iPad was introduced (super thin and with a new pencil), and most attention went to an ad…. I did not follow all the discussions, but I think the conversation between John Gruber and Ben Thompson was a good summary. And it was an interesting thought that the same movie played in reverse might have worked ok. Opening up, being more positive. But maybe also a bit more boring… Overall, it is interesting to discover how sensible it all is and how tech is treated more critically. And then it misses one thing crushed: the creative brain. Maybe as Apple plans to announce a full LLM integration, they will update the movie.. :-)
On the other end of the world, the academic interaction design community gathers at the yearly CHI conference. A lot was said on the location as it is maximising travel offset.. The prestigious academic gathering for interaction designers and beyond. I checked the Best Paper list for now, It’s hard to keep up, but I will keep my eye on the accounts of people present.
Google I/O is happening today (as you receive the email tomorrow for me), and it will probably be all about AI, Gemini AI. Like some years ago, it is promising, but the umfeld has changed a lot. An interview with Meta’s product guy is informative, with a little sneer at the AI devices debacle and the continuous focus on creating ad models for Gen AI, too.
I am not going into the whole Eurovision saga. Still, one thing is interesting for this newsletter: I think the fight between manipulating reality vs. the antidote of social media, especially if you make TikTok an official partner… I never had such a newsy event dominate the TikTok stream, and it turns out that you need specific strategies to disconnect from that black hole… In a column in the Dutch newspaper NRC Floor, Rusman shares a triggering thought: “The more we live in an online universe, the less local facts matter. In imaging, at least. But in political debate, image matters more than reality.” So, is there an immersive reality that goes beyond the usual framing and branding? Do we care at all about reality?
Ok, on to more reflective thoughts…
Triggered thought
In the book Heart and the Chip, Daniele Rus proposes a reference board for robots and AI to test safety broadly.
Perhaps we need an equivalent agency to monitor robots and AI. I don’t want this regulatory step to impede or dampen innovation, but the establishment of a standardized testing and evaluation program which certifies that a robot or machine intelligence has met the requirements outlined above could be a tremendously powerful and positive force for shaping the future of robotics and ensuring the maximal benefit for humans.
How will this work? Can we build it into AI systems as a list of questions it replies to? This would give insights into decision-making, not directly but as a quiz. How it responds to certain questions is telling and intriguing. It would be a Turing test for ethical behavior.
Also, she notions that the problems will be more from mistakes than misdesigns, which contrasts with the focus in development. Of course, there is always the discussion of whether misdesign is not the reason for the same mistakes, directly (by the robot or AI) or indirectly (responding to the robot).
Another follow-up thought, not new but triggered even more, is to define robots. We see robots broader than humanoids. But go beyond thinking of robots as a new type of thing and think of them as enhanced robotics. Think like a house that works as an ecosystem of decision-making. The house is a robot. Compared with Wijkbot and Crate-bot.
Read the notions of the news, paper for this week and events to track, via the newsletter. You can also subscribe for weekly updates on Tuesday 7 am CEST.
target is new 