The Design of Future Things Page 14

  We are now entering a new era in which everyday objects are growing smarter and smarter. This is happening in many domains, but nowhere as quickly as in the realm of the automobile. And what is in the automobile today will be in the kitchen, bathroom, and living room tomorrow. Intelligent Vehicles is a development program by the world’s automobile manufacturers to automate many of the components of driving, adding to people’s comfort and safety. Cars that drive themselves are not far away: cars that partially drive themselves are here today.

  “Intelligent agents,”“smart homes,”“ambient environments”: these are the names of multiple research projects in universities and research laboratories today. They include systems that select your music, control the room lighting—both brightness and color—and generally modify the environment, in part to add pleasure and comfort, in part to be more sensitive to environmental issues, such as energy usage. Other programs monitor the food you eat, the activities you perform, and even the people you interact with.

  In market-driven economies, new services are continually being offered to the public, not because there is demand but because the companies need to increase their sales. I’ve talked with the designers and service providers of mobile telephones and to the designers of home appliances. “Everyone already owns a mobile phone in this country,” I was told in South Korea, “so we have to think of additional services to offer: phones that tell you when you are near your friends, that you can use to pay bills, that identify who you are, and that provide transportation schedules.” Phones that sense your moods and make suggestions.

  Automobile makers long ago realized that cars could be thought of as fashion objects, going out of style on a regular basis, encouraging people to keep up to date. Phone makers have done the same thing. This is so true of watches that they are sold as jewelry, not technology. Refrigerators now have colorful displays on their front panels (right next to the ice and water dispensers) that tell you whatever the designer thinks you want to know. In the future, foods will have computer-readable tags so that the refrigerator will know what is inside it and what you are putting in or taking out. It will know the expiration dates of the items, as well as your weight and diet. It will continually make suggestions.

  Machines will become more social, talking with their owners, but also talking with one another. One movie rental company already compares the movies you watch and the ratings you give them with those of people you have listed as friends, recommending movies they liked which you haven’t yet seen, emailing you their findings. Perhaps your refrigerator will compare its contents with that of your neighbors’ refrigerators and recommend foods. Entertainment systems will compare music and video preferences, and your television set will compare the shows you watch with those watched by your neighbors. “Your friends are watching 12 Monkeys right now,” it might say. “I’ve turned it on for you as well, but even though they’ve already started, I’ll start yours from the beginning.”

  At the same time that our machines are getting more intelligent, with more and more capabilities and communication facilities, there has been a revolution in materials. Need a lightweight, extremely strong material that can be embedded in the human body without deterioration and without harm to the body? Sure, coming up. Need environmentally friendly materials that are easily recyclable or biologically degradable? Sure, coming up. Need flexibility? Need a cloth that can display pictures? Sure, coming up. New methods of displaying and interacting with art, music, images, and sounds proliferate. Sensors allow detection of movement and identification of people and objects. New displays allow messages and images to be projected seemingly anywhere. Some materials are tiny, microscopic (nanotechnology). Some are large (bridges and ships). Some are biological, some metallic, some ceramic, some plastic, and some organic. Materials are changing.

  These materials can be used to fabricate new items in the home itself. Today’s fax machines and printers are capable of reproducing words and pictures two-dimensionally on paper. In the very near future, we will see faxes and printers that produce three-dimensional copies. Did your child make a nice clay sculpture you want to show the grandparents? Put it in the 3-D fax, and it will be recreated at their home. Did the hinge on a kitchen appliance break? Have a new one faxed to you. Or design your own objects, drawing them on the home screen and creating them as real, physical devices.

  The 3-D fax works by scanning the object, using a laser beam, multiple photographs, or both, creating an accurate digital representation that depicts the object’s precise shape. Then, this representation is sent to the receiving station, which recreates the object with a 3-D printer. These printers now work by a wide variety of means, but most construct the object layer by layer. A very thin layer of material—often a plastic or polymer, sometimes a powdered metal—is deposited to create an exact re-creation of the cross-sectional shape of the object at one level. That layer is then hardened, using a hardening agent such as heat or ultra violet light, and the process repeats itself for the next layer.

  Today, 3-D printing technology is only in companies and universities, but the prices are now getting low enough and the quality good enough that it is easy to contemplate every home having a 3-D printer in the future. Note that the 3-D printing technology doesn’t require that there be an original object to copy: any drawing will do, as long as it specifies the piece precisely. It won’t be long before anyone can use a home sketching kit to produce the proper drawing, and shortly thereafter the home printer will have created the actual physical object. If you can draw it, you can make it. “You didn’t have enough dinner plates for your guests,” your house might announce, “so I took the liberty of printing more. I made sure to use the same pattern.”

  What about Robots?

  Robots are coming, but what does this mean? Many experts would have you believe that robots are already here, capable of a wide variety of activities, including managing health care—for instance, monitoring medication compliance—handling security, performing education services, running errands, and providing entertainment. Robots are, of course, used in manufacturing, in search-and-rescue missions, and in the military. When we discuss reasonably priced machines for personal use, however, most of these so-called applications are more dream than reality, with unreliable mechanisms barely able to get through demonstrations.

  FIGURE 7.1

  The home robot of the future? This is what we dream of, but much as I might like to be served by a robot, as shown in the drawing by Alison Wong, this development is unlikely to come to pass anytime soon. See the text for the reasons.

  Given that any successful product for the home must be affordable, reliable, safe, and usable by everyday people, what might a home robot do? Would it look like a human servant (Figure 7.1)? In the home, form will probably follow function. A kitchen robot might be built into the counter space, with dishwasher, pantry, coffee maker, and cooking units arranged so that they can communicate with one another and pass items readily back and forth. An entertainment robot might take on a humanoid appearance. And robots that vacuum or mow lawns will look like, well, vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers.

  Making robots work well is incredibly difficult. Their sensory apparatus is limited because sensors are expensive and interpretation (especially commonsense knowledge) is still more suited to research than deployment. Robotic arms are expensive to build and not very reliable. This limits the range of possibilities: Mowing and vacuuming? Sure. Sorting laundry? Hard, but doable. Picking up dirty items around the home? Doubtful. How about assistance for the elderly or those who need medical supervision? This is a booming area of exploration, but I am skeptical. Today’s devices are not reliable, versatile, or intelligent enough—not yet, anyway. Many so-called robots are in actuality remotely controlled by people. Autonomous robots that interact with people are difficult to design. Moreover, the social aspects of the interaction, including the need for common ground, are far more complex than the technical ones, something technology-driven ent
husiasts typically fail to recognize.

  Three likely directions for the future are entertainment, home appliances, and education. We can start with today’s existing devices and slowly add on intelligence, manipulative ability, and function. The market for robots that entertain by being cute and cuddly is already well established. Robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers already exist. The definition of “robot” varies widely, often being used to refer to anything that is mobile, even though it is controlled by a human. I prefer to restrict the term to autonomous systems. I would classify intelligent home appliances as robots: many coffee makers, microwave ovens, dishwashers, and clothes washers and dryers have more intelligence and actuators than robot vacuum cleaners—and they are also a lot more expensive. But they don’t move around the room, which for many people disqualifies them from the label “robot.”

  Education is a powerful possibility. A solid base of devices already aid learning. Today’s robots can read aloud in engaging voices. They can be cute and lovable—witness the responses to the multiple quasi-intelligent animals on the toy market. A robot could very well interact with a child, offering educational benefits as well. Why not have the robot help the child learn the alphabet or teach reading, vocabulary, pronunciation, basic arithmetic, and maybe basic reasoning? Why not music and art, geography, and history? And why restrict this technology to children? Adults, too, can benefit from robot-assisted learning.

  Now, this is a direction deserving exploration: robot as teacher—not to replace school or human contact and interaction, but to supplement them. The beauty here is that these tasks are well within the abilities of today’s devices. They don’t require much mobility or sophisticated manipulators. Many technologists dream of implementing Neil Stephenson’s children’s tutor from his novel The Diamond Age: Or, A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer. Here is a worthy challenge.

  All of the problems discussed in this book about autonomous assistants apply with even greater force to robots. So-called general-purpose robots—those of movie and science fiction fame—suffer from the common ground problem. How will we communicate with them? How will we synchronize our activities so neither of us gets in the other’s way? How will we instruct them? My suspicion is that when they finally start to appear, they will barely communicate: they will take instructions (clean the house, pick up the dirty dishes, bring me a drink), and then they will go off to do these tasks, leaving us humans to learn their habits and keep out of their way.

  Intelligent home appliances, robot vacuum cleaners and lawn mowers are really special-purpose robots. They do not have a communication problem because they have a limited repertoire of activities, so they offer only a few alternatives to their owners. As a result, we know what to expect of them and how to interact. For these devices, the common ground required for interaction consists of our mutual understanding of the tasks they are designed to perform, the strengths and limitations of their abilities, and the environment they work in. The result is fewer miscommunications, fewer difficulties than with more general-purpose devices.

  Robots have been of value to explorers of dangerous or difficult-to-reach locations, such as the insides of volcanoes, sewer pipes, or the surface of Mars or the moon. They are well suited for assessing damage and locating survivors after accidents, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks. Yet, these are hardly everyday activities, and for these applications, cost is not critical. Still, these special applications are giving us the experience necessary to get the costs down and make these devices available for everyone.

  Finally, there is one other type of robot to come: interconnected, communicating robots. Cars are already starting to talk to one another and to the highways so they can synchronize intersections and lane changing. In the near future, cars will let restaurants know their location so they can suggest menus to the passengers. Clothes washing machines are starting to talk to clothes driers so the drier knows just what to expect and what setting to use. In the United States, people have separate washing machines and driers, so if this pattern persists, someday, the clothes will be automatically transferred from washer to dryer. (In Europe and Asia, a single machine often does both, making the transition between the two activities much simpler.) In restaurants and homes, dishes will automatically be put into the dishwasher and then automatically sent to the pantry. Home appliances will synchronize their operations, the better to control noise and minimize energy costs by delaying their operations for off-peak hours.

  Robots are arriving, and as they do, we will run into precisely the problems I’ve been discussing throughout this book. They are starting out as toys, entertainment devices, and simple pets. Then they will become companions, reading stories and tutoring topics such as reading, language instruction, spelling, and mathematics. They will allow us to monitor the home (and our elderly relatives) from a distance. And soon, the appliances in our homes and automobiles will become part of intelligent communication networks. Special-purpose robots will increase in number, in power, and in the range of tasks they are able to perform. General-purpose robots will arrive last of all, decades from now.

  Technology Changes, but People Stay the Same—or Do They?

  It used to be a truism among scholars that although technologies change, people stay the same. The biological species called Homo sapiens changes very slowly through the process of natural evolution. Moreover, even individuals change their behavior slowly, and this natural conservatism dampens the impact of technological change. Although science and technology make rapid changes, month-by-month, year-by-year, people’s behaviors and cultures take decades to change. Biological change takes place over millennia.

  But what if the changes in technology impact us as human beings, not just our physical artifacts? What if we implant bionic enhancers or do genetic modification? Today, we already implant artificial lenses for the eye, prosthetic auditory devices for the ears, and soon vision enhancements for those who cannot see. Some surgical operations can make eyes superior to normally functioning ones. Implants and biological enhancers, even for everyday life for otherwise normal people, no longer seem like the dreams of science fiction but are becoming both real and realistic. Athletes already modify their natural abilities through drugs and operations. Can brain enhancement be far behind?

  But even without genetic design, biomagic, or surgery, the human brain does change as a result of experience. Thus, London taxi drivers, famous for their detailed knowledge of London streets, are known to increase the size of their brain structures in the hippocampus through the years of training they undergo to acquire that knowledge. It isn’t just London taxi drivers, however. Many experts, it seems, have expanded brain structures in the areas responsible for their expertise. Experience does change the brain. The evidence suggests that extended contact with technology—long hours spent practicing musical instruments or typing with the thumbs on cell phones or other hand-held devices—constitutes the kind of practice that can affect the brain.

  Are children growing up with different brains because of their exposure to technology? I’ve been asked that question for years, and for years I’ve said that the brain is determined by biology, and evolution is unaffected by our experiences. Well, I was right in saying that brain biology does not change: the brain at birth of people born today is very much the same as human brains have been for thousands of years. But I was also wrong. Experience does change the brain, especially prolonged, early experience of children.

  Exercise makes muscles stronger; mental practice makes regions of the brain function better. Brain changes brought about by learning and practice are not inherited, just as increased muscle mass is not passed from one generation to the next. Still, as technology enters the life of children at an earlier and earlier age, it will impact how they respond, think, and behave. Their brains will be modified early in life to accommodate these new skills.

  Many more changes are possible. Biological technology, perhaps coupled with implanted devices for perception, memory, and e
ven strength enhancement, is slowly, inevitably coming. Future generations may not be content with natural biology. Battles will arise between those who are modified and those who resist. Science fiction will become science fact.

  As we move forward, society needs to address the impact of all this change on individuals and societies. Designers are at the forefront of these concerns, for it is the designer who translates ideas into reality. Today, more than ever before, designers need to understand the social impact of their actions.

  Conforming to Our Technology

  Science Finds,

  Industry Applies,

  Man Conforms

  —Motto of the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair.

  People Propose,

  Science Studies,

  Technology Conforms

  —A person-centered motto for the twenty-first century.

  In my book Things That Make Us Smart, I argue that it is technology that should conform to us, not, as the 1933 World’s Fair motto would have it, we who should conform to technology. I wrote that book in 1993, and since then I have changed my mind. Sure, I would prefer that machines adapt to people. In the end, though, machines are simply too limited in capability. We humans are flexible and adaptable. They are rigid and unchanging. We are more capable of change. We either take technology as it is or go without.

  The danger of stating that people must adapt to machines is that some designers and engineers will interpret the recommendation out of context, believing it gives them free rein to design however they wish, optimizing their work for machine efficiency and ease of design, engineering, and construction. But the statement is not an excuse for inappropriate design. We certainly shouldn’t have to adapt to that.