[spacecity1971]

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.

[piercebot]

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.

[dhruvkar]

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.

[Nasrudith]

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".

[Nasrudith]

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.

[piercebot]

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 :)

[licebmi__at__]

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.

[sysbin]

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?

[semerda]

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.

[rgrs]

True, Imaginative thinking will be impaired by these.

[spacecity1971]

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?

[rgrs]

That's what friends are for.

[dannycastonguay]

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.

[rgrs]

As another commenter said, stuffed toys atleast help with kids imagination skills. Interactive robots that gamify life, i don't think so

[agitator]

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.

[softwaredoug]

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...

[paulryanrogers]

This is true to a point. Vicious bullying and physical abuse are very real risks for children without enough supervision.

[JoeAltmaier]

Yet the commercial shows total helicopter parents, hanging on every word and inflection between the child and the robot. I was taken aback.

[Psyladine]

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?

[loginx]

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.

[ta1234567890]

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.

[klyrs]

> Shouldn't parents be doing this?

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?

[carapace]

Of course "society [should] aim to diminish the impact of bad parenting".

That's not what these robots are.

[gowld]

Does this objection apply to all books and toys as well? Restaurants? Clothing and all other manufacturered goods? Why or why not?

[spacecity1971]

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.