"I'm very interested in using voice and face recognition to set lights and temperature as well depending on who is in what rooms, etc," he writes. [...]
The really interesting part of Zuckerberg's AI plan is when it moves past standard smart home controls and into his work. Describing the "simple AI" that he intends to build, Zuckerberg writes, "On the work side, it'll help me visualize data in VR to help me build better services and lead my organizations more effectively."
— theverge.com
You can read Mark Zuckerberg's entire Facebook post on his AI home-plan here. Referring to already commercially available "smart home" technologies (such as temperature, entertainment, or security controls), Zuckerberg plans to build on existing products to make them more responsive with less input – to be able to recognize his presence vs. his wife's, for example, without either of them "announcing" themselves to the tech.
More heavy-hitting forays into the "smart home":
29 Comments
Sounds like he read one too many Wired articles. Those smart thermostats are awesome though... but can we stop congratulating ourselves for things we haven't done yet? Amazing how many of these things never make it--remember Google Glass? And that was Google, not someone who's riding a Friendster rip-off.
Look at you ripping off the Romans with your concrete building.
As if there are major critical problems with light switches that need to be resolved. Go away.
I want my toilet to talk to me whilst I'm on it, make SmartToilets a thing.
Meanderings of a spoiled pimpled faced child.... exploiting the ideas of others and calling them his own.
This is where you guys fail. There is a huge market for home automation interoperability APIs. If you can get a standard rolling and back it with facebook's muscle, you're in business for good. If he open source (which I can bet he will), we all profit.
I was in the hardware store yesterday and saw a $2 lightbulb next to a $40 smart bulb (with a $100 starter kit)--I was like, I know what this is about....
At least a concrete building has a real function. Notice the lack of tech interest in making good architecture.... Just a industry of copycats doing "home automation" that's already been figured out by Nest and co.
I'd like to see smart technology that changes the temperature whenever poor people enter the room. 72 degrees for the rich, and 50 degrees for the poor. It's much better that way. Or temperature changes based on who has the most FB friends--probably happening in India already...
Meanderings of a spoiled pimpled faced child
wow. not a zuckerberg fan? you might have noticed from his facebook posts (linked in the article) that his goal is to build on what others have created; to tie them together with a new ai program. he isn't trying to call other people's ideas his own, he's trying to create a middleware interface to make other people's ideas more accessible and useful.
i'm not a decrepit old man yet, so i don't have the advantage of looking back on very many wasted opportunities, but it sure seems to me that this guy is actually able to visualize a direction for the future, and has the support, the intelligence, and the resources to make his vision happen. pimples aside, surely he's earned a little bit of respect for what he's accomplished?
edited to add that nest wasn't really the innovator either. x10, as an example, was started in 1975. all home automation is just exploiting the ideas of others, probably from sci-fi writers long before the technology became practical.
Think the problem isn't "respect" it's in a weird media time where innovation is celebrated before the fact. It's morally problematic when the powerful can create their own spin and nobody will call B.S. On it. Kind of like how Facebook uses "charity" as a cover for many exploitative technologies.
Would add..ever hear the term "home automation"? Builders have been offering it for some 20 years.... the reason it hasn't taken off isn't because of perfection it's because of rejection, nobody wants it.... maybe the pimples will help.
what spin? what charity? what does zuckerberg's interest in home automation have to do with any of that?
carrera, i'm pretty sure the problem with home automation is that there isn't an easy centralized network tying everything together. people buy garage door openers that they can open with their phone. cameras for home security are becoming more popular too. people like that kind of technology. the problem is the garage door doesn't easily speak to the lights. the technology is developing, and it's probably going to develop in a more or less affordable way.
can the home automation system light a candle and a fire when the power and all the backup goes kaput?
jlc-1, there's no reason it couldn't start a gas fire from a backup generator or battery backup.
and the backup for the backup? this ideal of automation doesn't go too far without a human interface
you could have a battery backup as backup for a generator.
at some point there is obviously a human interface. in zuckerberg's specific example, he says he'll teach the ai to let his friends in when they ring the doorbell. so, the first element of human interaction is someone ringing a doorbell (doorbell being a human interface device). the second is where zuckerberg would have to somehow tell the AI who is his friend. the guy runs a company built around coding and simple user interfaces. he's actually in a pretty good position to develop the missing part of home automation.
there is no implication that home automation is supposed to somehow get rid of people. another phrase from the facebook post, "help me with my work." he's not saying "do my work for me." it's simply developing a system that can make some of the mundane daily tasks we take for granted a little easier or less time consuming.
I know, but I still think his impact would be much greater if he aimed to give every house in the planet running water and electricity, start by bringing everybody to the 21st century, put the efforts where they're needed instead of solving a self experience nuissance
There was an article awhile back - maybe 8 years ago? - that told the story of an architect going to visit their client in the client's brand new house he had just moved in to. The client had hired an AV consultant to set up a major in-home stereo system. When the architect arrived music was playing through the whole house and the client admitted it had been playing continuously for the last three days because he didn't know how to turn it off.
Automation is great, but has to have SUPER EASY overrides.
jlc, it would be just as true and relevant to say it would be equally great if you were to give every house in the planet running water and electricity. or if i were to do all that. while the thought is noble, i don't think it's necessarily reasonable to push your morals or agendas or whatever on other people. just because he's rich doesn't mean he has an obligation to believe in what you believe in (though he has committed to spending 99% of his wealth in his lifetime to charitable causes). aside from that, pretty much all technological advances in human history have come from someone investing in advances in technology rather than investing in lifting people out of poverty. in addition to the above, this is not a commitment to how he will spend his wealth, it's a more of a hobby and something he will spend time working on. he also said, in a different facebook update, that he plans on running 365 miles this year.
donna, i think making a simple user interface that can communicate with all elements of home automation, from garage door openers to coffee pots to lights to radios to TVs, is what's holding back more widespread adoption. zuckerberg has the ability to do that.
you know what's holding back widespread adoption? paying exorbitant sums of money for something you don't need. I'm not trying to push anything on anybody, it's just a commentary on meaningless endeavors, zuck can and will spend his billions anyway he wants, like hiring gehry to build a warehouse on steroids.
BTW - his “pledge” to “give” away 99% of his stock is not a “giving pledge” but a “keeping pledge”, he’s just moving the money to a Delaware LLC…like changing bank accounts with a “pledge” that he’ll do good with it over time (in exchange for tax breaks), but doesn’t have to…the money is still his, under his sole control and “doing good” could just as easily be a new Ferrari to drive little Max to nursery school…the key is he didn’t “give it away”….he didn’t create a nonprofit, he created an LLC…nonprofits have to give to nonprofits, LLC’s can give it to anybody…including himself and all variety of startups under the guise of “doing good”, including this little venture.
You’re right, not a fan, guys a snake, it’s in his DNA, just ask Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss.
Is there a point at which we can start saying "no" to technology collectively?
I'm really happy that cancer treatments keep getting better and better, and that solar cells are getting cheaper, but I really don't want to live in a world where everything has a screen. I spend all day looking at them, and I would prefer not to when communicating with my family, or reading, or turning on the lights. Let's use tech where it works, and ignore it when it becomes just more crap to buy.
Yeah, tech and all the other bullshit we consume is getting slightly more efficient, but since we're consuming more and more, at some point our "advances" are still going to be the end of us. Probably literally, through climate change, pandemic, etc., but at the very least, spiraling down into the singularity will destroy the things that I love the most about being human.
We need to stop looking to Silicon Valley for ways to imagine the future.
home automation stuff has never been all that expensive.
my fridge has a screen on it. never used it once. I don't even like talking to people all that much... let alone my fridge.
It's been done.
an led light bulb that can be controlled by your smart phone doesn't use more electricity (especially when compared with the incandescents we've been using for years, or even compact fluorescents). it can often be controlled through a switch if you want, or be programmed to a schedule, or be operated through motion sensors, so you don't have to worry about screens to operate the light if you don't want. a new light bulb is not going to prevent you from putting your phone down and going outside. you can even program the light to turn on and off so it looks like someone is home before you leave, slightly reducing the possibility of home invasion if you go camping in the great outdoors.
if you want to reduce energy consumption to help slow climate change, it would be far smarter to buy a smaller house which requires fewer light bulbs than it would be to eschew technology. add a 'smart' thermostat and lights that turn off when you leave the room, and you'll save even more energy.
the winklevoss twins are trust fund babies who make money through predatory lawsuits. while their opinion on rowing is probably worth seeking out, why would you think their opinion on who is or is not a snake is valid? you really think earning wealth by hiring an attorney for predatory lawsuits is the same as actually doing something for a living? i suppose that would be consistent with many of your posts.
moon cheese shares soar! I love Wallace and Gromit!
Here in paradise "smart homes" are just really really stupid houses, featurized to the point of requiring near constant maintenance. Most of the various smart systems refuse to cooperate with each other, requiring bandaid-type software applications that routinely fail.
I've yet to see one that actually works as advertised let alone is operable by anyone other than a dedicated fadget. You'd think that 15 or 20 million would get you something better than that, but the people buying them are loaded to the gills with everything except intelligence.
15 to 20 million gets you people with more money than sense (cents, get it? lol) and 'tradesmen' that can take advantage of them by promising them shiny shit that their neighbors might envy.
most of the end-use stuff, light light bulbs or garage door openers, exist, but there doesn't seem to be a clean way to tie it together that is easy to use and just works. that's why having a guy who built a website with a user interface that 1.5 billion people can navigate might make it more accessible. maybe it won't. the future is anyone's guess. still, the fear of technology is just kind of dumb. if you don't want to stare at the screen all day, just look away.
"Just look away." Yeah, what profession are you working in?
Not a fear of tech, just the feeling that we're all turning into sheep, and we could avoid it if we didn't just go along with the folks who are marketing to us.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.