A Rabbit R1, a Humane Ai pin és a Limitless pendant azért buktak el, mert nem valós felhasználói igényekre épültek. Tony Fadell, az iPod és az iPhone egyik megalkotója az MIT Future Fest konferencián kifejtette, hogy ezek az eszközök csupán a technológiai rajongók számára voltak érdekesek. A szakember szerint a legtöbb embernek soha nem volt személyi asszisztense, így nem is tudják, hogyan kellene használniuk vagy megbízniuk egy AI-segédben.\n\nA jövő sikeres személyi asszisztenseinek a biztonság és a bizalom garantálása miatt teljesen az adott eszközön, nem pedig távoli adatközpontokban kell futniuk. Fadell úgy látja, hogy az adatok helyi kezelése biztosítja a szükséges adatvédelmet, amire jó példa az Apple adatkezelési gyakorlata. Bár a hardvergyártó óriás rendelkezik a megfelelő chipekkel és a felhasználók bizalmával, saját, világszínvonalú AI-modell hiányában egyelőre kiszolgáltatott.\n\nA kisebb startupoknak ráadásul mindössze 1 esélyük van a sikeres piacra lépésre, míg a technológiai óriások megengedhetik maguknak a drága kísérletezést. A Meta és az OpenAI azért próbálkoznak saját hardverekkel, mert a mobiltelefonok szenzoraihoz és adataihoz csak így férnek hozzá közvetlenül.
Az eredeti szöveg (TechCrunch AI)
Last day to exhibit your breakthrough to 10,000+ tech leaders at Disrupt is on Oct 2. Book Exhibit Table Now.
Disrupt doors open Oct. 13. Get your pass and bring someone with you at 50% off. REGISTER NOW.
When Tony Fadell takes the stage at the inaugural MIT Future Fest, he projects a slide with three images of once-hyped AI devices that have already been discontinued: the Rabbit R1, the Humane Ai pin, and the Limitless pendant.
“These were kind of the ‘Gen 1’ AI products, and because of my background, these companies called me and asked me to help them,” Fadell said. “I didn’t.”
It’s no surprise that these companies want Fadell’s advice. He’s credited as the “father of the iPod,” a co-creator of the iPhone, and the founder of Nest, the smart thermostat company acquired by Google.
“You have to really understand what you’re trying to do, what pain you’re trying to solve,” he said. “In each of these cases, each one of them didn’t meet any kind of need — it was just interesting technology for geeks, and you’re like, ‘Okay, that’s neat, but it doesn’t really apply to my life.’”
These early AI devices promised the convenience of having a personal assistant, but didn’t actually work that well. Even if they did, most people have never had an assistant and know how they would use — or grow to trust — a personal robot helper.
“It’s less than 0.01% of the world population that has ever had a human [assistant] do anything, and so when [companies] say, ‘Oh, we want an assistant,’ that’s a bunch of people who have assistants saying it,” he said. “Most consumers don’t even know what an assistant is.”
Fadell goes on to explain to those of us in the 99.99% that hiring a trustworthy personal assistant isn’t as straightforward as pulling the most promising resume out of a pile of applications.
“It took me a couple of years first to understand how best to utilize [an assistant], and then to trust them with the most sensitive data, and have them be an agent where they’re setting up meetings with people and working with my bank,” he said. “I understand we have this vision of the future, but there’s a lot of steps to get the general consumer and even the general business on this path.”
It’s hard to talk about the struggles of building trust in your personal assistant without sounding a bit entitled, but Fadell has a point. When you hire a human assistant, you’re not giving them your bank account login on day one. We’re heading into a world where anyone can have a personal AI assistant, but these tools are only valuable if we can trust them to be completely secure.
At this point, establishing trust with an AI assistant seems even harder than relying on a human. Meta recently launched Muse, its all-purpose AI assistant, but users have reason to be wary. A security researcher quickly found a serious vulnerability in Muse after launch, and a recent 404 Media report states that some Meta employees discovered security issues that prompted multiple teams to embark upon a “mad dash” to fix these problems before launch, working overtime.
“Trust and safety are going to be paramount with anything that we turn over to some kind of intelligence,” Fadell said. “The only company I could see right now — maybe one other — is Apple who could do this. Apple has all the hardware, they have all the chips, they have all the pieces, but they don’t have all the AI stuff.”
Even if it’s not Apple that ultimately produces the stickiest AI agent, Fadell predicts that a successful agent will have to operate on-device only, both for the sake of privacy and to keep the tech lightweight.
“When you’re hearing all of these things about, ‘Oh, data centers are going to conquer the world,’ … I don’t believe it,” he said. “I’ve seen this before. I’ve seen this play out in the internet days and what have you. We have so much power on the device now, and even more compute, and they’re still battery operated.”
By keeping sensitive data on-device, rather than transmitting it
