<p>觀點：阿西莫夫的機器人三大法則被會計學的第一法則所超越：你必須賺錢。iRobot，這家生產 Roomba 機器人吸塵器的公司，正在進行第 11 章破產，其中國製造合作伙伴兼債權人準備對其進行剝離。</p>
<p>Roomba 已經存在超過二十年，獲得了很高的品牌認知度和幾乎持續的硬件與軟件創新。它可能會迎來轉機，但 iRobot 卻無法盈利。公司將失敗歸咎於一系列原因，包括運輸延誤、消費者的謹慎以及關税的影響，其他人則將矛頭指向一大批低成本的仿製品。或許。</p>
<p>這不是你以前見過的短語：今天的吸塵器市場非常迷人。它是更大趨勢的縮影，機器人清潔器利用人工智能和不斷演變的機械理念，與吸塵管展開競爭。科技社會革命的研究者對此不會感到驚訝。</p>
<p>第一台吸塵器是馬車拖動的裝置，將軟管伸入房屋，標誌着家用電器的黎明，使中產階級擺脱了家庭傭人。20 世紀的快速進步造就了像 Hoover 這樣的工業巨頭，以及對便利性上癮的消費文化。如果有哪個時刻和地點適合機器人進一步解放大眾免於自己做家務，那就是現在。你知道情況。人工智能依託無比強大的計算能力，製造出計算機控制的奇蹟。吸塵器從工具演變為代理。那麼，問題出在哪裏？</p>
<p>首先是機器本身。市場領導者，像侏羅紀時代的圓筒吸塵器，通常可以使用超過十年。它們相對簡單，使用頻率不高。機器人吸塵器則複雜得多，承諾幾乎持續的清潔，並且對鋰電池有依賴。毫不奇怪，它們在使用幾年後出現故障並不罕見。將家用電器轉變為智能手機的更新節奏是一個艱難的銷售。</p>
<p>即使在它們正常工作時，機器人吸塵器也並不總是能兑現其承諾，這樣説也算是寬容。清潔房屋完全依賴於人類的感官和決策能力。一個家庭中有不同生命週期的智人、貓和狗，可能會在各種地方產生大量不同的物質。家用科技的平均宣傳視頻可能會展示年輕專業人士在陽光明媚的極簡主義幻想公寓中。然而，現實生活中的體驗卻並非如此。</p>
<p>然而，我們生活在一個奇蹟的時代。清理貓、幼兒和週五晚派對後雜亂的房間是先進人工智能應該樂於接受的挑戰。即使今天它無法勝任，Roomba 作為第一個產生影響的家用人工智能應用的地位，應該能像螞蟻一樣吸引投資者。良好的業績記錄、品牌認知度、堅實的知識產權積累、無與倫比的領域專業知識。似乎這些都不值得從廚房地板上撿起來。</p>
<ul>
<li>根據《計算機濫用法》對道德黑客的法律保護只是第一步</li>
<li>無論人工智能在什麼合法場合，操作系統都不是其中之一</li>
<li>氛圍編碼：有什麼用？絕對沒有（抱歉，Linus）</li>
<li>人工智能音樂終於戰勝了表演人類，但聽起來一點也不像勝利</li>
</ul>
<p>現實撞上了機器人技術，而現實贏了。iRobot 曾向亞馬遜提供自己，作為一種理想的智能家居電器。由於監管反對，亞馬遜沒有完成這筆交易。</p>
<p>事實證明，家用電器對智能家居的影響是免疫的。瀏覽亞馬遜自己的網站，尋找支持 Alexa 的烹飪器具、冰箱、微波爐、洗衣機，或者任何超出燈光和插頭的產品，選擇寥寥，價格荒謬。現實與智能家居相遇，現實贏了。</p>
<p>這就是 iRobot 失敗的原因，在一個對人工智能投資和機器人熱潮的市場中。它承載着現實的污名。它的承諾簡單易懂，令人渴望，容易接受。曾經。</p>
<p>像所有其他消費類機器人一樣，除了可爭辯的時間轉移錄像機外，它無法承受太多現實。人工智能投資者對此心知肚明。他們知道，要讓 Roomba 成為下一個 Hoover，存在着太大的鴻溝，他們也知道實際的消費者體驗意味着我們也知道這一點。</p>
<p>因此，現實免疫社區集中精力於人形機器人，這些機器人在幾十年內都將超出消費者體驗，甚至無法在沙發下吸塵，處理它們在那兒遇到的不可言説的寵物殘留物。</p>
<p>正如虛擬現實、自動駕駛汽車和微軟的移動操作系統策略所示，銷售夢想比消除失望要容易。你不相信虛擬現實和自動駕駛？回顧十年前的承諾，再回到今天，看看這些東西實際上在你生活中佔據了多大一部分。當一項技術承諾代替你面對現實時，它最好不要失誤。它通常會失誤。</p>
<p>或許，如果 Roomba 將自己描述為一種代理電器，它在生存鬥爭中會表現得更好。足夠準確，因此我們懷疑，這完全不受歡迎。想要清理卻僅僅吸塵的機器人的寓言，實在讓人感到不安。®</p>

IRBT

IRBTQ

<p>iRobot，Roomba 的製造商，由於未能實現盈利，儘管品牌知名度和創新能力強，現已進入第 11 章破產程序。導致這一結果的因素包括運輸延誤、關税以及來自低成本仿製品的競爭。與傳統吸塵器相比，機器人吸塵器的複雜性和短暫使用壽命也加劇了其失敗。iRobot 試圖出售給亞馬遜的計劃因監管問題而失敗。市場現實與圍繞人工智能和機器人技術的炒作發生衝突，導致了 iRobot 的崩潰</p>

<p>Opinion Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are trumped by accountancy's First Law of Finance: you must make money. iRobot, the company behind the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner, is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with its Chinese manufacturing partner-cum-creditor poised to pick over the bones.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>觀點：阿西莫夫的機器人三大法則被會計學的第一法則所超越：你必須賺錢。iRobot，這家生產 Roomba 機器人吸塵器的公司，正在進行第 11 章破產，其中國製造合作伙伴兼債權人準備對其進行剝離。</p>
</div><p>The Roomba has been around for more than two decades, garnering great brand recognition and near-constant hardware and software innovation. It could turn a corner, but iRobot couldn't turn a profit. The company blamed a barrage of reasons for failure, including shipping delays, consumer timidity, and the joy of tariffs, with others pointing the finger at an army of low-cost knock-offs. Perhaps.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Roomba 已經存在超過二十年，獲得了很高的品牌認知度和幾乎持續的硬件與軟件創新。它可能會迎來轉機，但 iRobot 卻無法盈利。公司將失敗歸咎於一系列原因，包括運輸延誤、消費者的謹慎以及關税的影響，其他人則將矛頭指向一大批低成本的仿製品。或許。</p>
</div><p>This is not a phrase you will have met before: today's vacuum cleaner market is fascinating. A microcosm of much bigger trends, with robotic cleaners using AI and constantly evolving mechanical ideas in a battle with sucking tubes. Students of techo-social revolution won't be so surprised.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這不是你以前見過的短語：今天的吸塵器市場非常迷人。它是更大趨勢的縮影，機器人清潔器利用人工智能和不斷演變的機械理念，與吸塵管展開競爭。科技社會革命的研究者對此不會感到驚訝。</p>
</div><p>The first vacuum cleaners, horse-drawn contraptions that poked their hoses into houses, marked the dawn of domestic appliances that decoupled the middle classes from household servants. Rapid advances in the 20th century produced industrial giants like Hoover, and an addiction to being sold convenience. If ever there was a time and place for robots to further liberate the masses from doing their own domestic service, it's now. You know the score. AI backed by immeasurably powerful computing, manufacturing a miracle of computer-controlled finesse. The vacuum cleaner evolves from being a tool to becoming an agent. So what went wrong?</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>第一台吸塵器是馬車拖動的裝置，將軟管伸入房屋，標誌着家用電器的黎明，使中產階級擺脱了家庭傭人。20 世紀的快速進步造就了像 Hoover 這樣的工業巨頭，以及對便利性上癮的消費文化。如果有哪個時刻和地點適合機器人進一步解放大眾免於自己做家務，那就是現在。你知道情況。人工智能依託無比強大的計算能力，製造出計算機控制的奇蹟。吸塵器從工具演變為代理。那麼，問題出在哪裏？</p>
</div><p>The machines themselves, for a start. The market leaders, the Jurassic herds of cylinder vacuums, can easily last beyond a decade. They're quite simple and don't see the heaviest use. Robot vacuums are vastly more complex, promise practically constant cleansing, and have a lithium addiction. Unsurprisingly, it's not unusual for them to conk out after a couple of years. Moving a domestic appliance onto a smartphone refresh cadence is a hard sell.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>首先是機器本身。市場領導者，像侏羅紀時代的圓筒吸塵器，通常可以使用超過十年。它們相對簡單，使用頻率不高。機器人吸塵器則複雜得多，承諾幾乎持續的清潔，並且對鋰電池有依賴。毫不奇怪，它們在使用幾年後出現故障並不罕見。將家用電器轉變為智能手機的更新節奏是一個艱難的銷售。</p>
</div><p>Even when they have worked, robot vacuum cleaners haven't always lived up to their promise, and that's being charitable. Cleaning a house fully engages a human's senses and decision making. A household with mixed Homo sapiens, Felis catus, and Canis lupus familiaris, all at different stages in their life cycles, can throw up a very large range of materials in a very large range of places. The average promo video for home technology may feature young professionals in a sunlit minimalist fantasy apartment. The average real-life experience does not.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>即使在它們正常工作時，機器人吸塵器也並不總是能兑現其承諾，這樣説也算是寬容。清潔房屋完全依賴於人類的感官和決策能力。一個家庭中有不同生命週期的智人、貓和狗，可能會在各種地方產生大量不同的物質。家用科技的平均宣傳視頻可能會展示年輕專業人士在陽光明媚的極簡主義幻想公寓中。然而，現實生活中的體驗卻並非如此。</p>
</div><p>Yet we live in an age of miracles. Clearing up after cats, toddlers, and a Friday night party in a cluttered den is a challenge advanced AI should relish. Even if it can't hack it today, Roomba's position as one of the first domestic AI use cases that made an impact should have drawn investors in like ants to a jam sandwich dropped behind the fridge. A track record, brand recognition, a solid body of hard-won IP, unmatched domain expertise. None of this, it seems, is worth picking up from the kitchen floor.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>然而，我們生活在一個奇蹟的時代。清理貓、幼兒和週五晚派對後雜亂的房間是先進人工智能應該樂於接受的挑戰。即使今天它無法勝任，Roomba 作為第一個產生影響的家用人工智能應用的地位，應該能像螞蟻一樣吸引投資者。良好的業績記錄、品牌認知度、堅實的知識產權積累、無與倫比的領域專業知識。似乎這些都不值得從廚房地板上撿起來。</p>
</div><ul>
<li>Legal protection for ethical hacking under Computer Misuse Act is only the first step</li>
<li>Whatever legitimate places AI has, inside an OS ain't one</li>
<li>Vibe coding: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing (Sorry, Linus)</li>
<li>AI music has finally beaten hat-act humans, but sounds nothing like victory</li>
</ul>
<div class="lb-trans"><ul>
<li>根據《計算機濫用法》對道德黑客的法律保護只是第一步</li>
<li>無論人工智能在什麼合法場合，操作系統都不是其中之一</li>
<li>氛圍編碼：有什麼用？絕對沒有（抱歉，Linus）</li>
<li>人工智能音樂終於戰勝了表演人類，但聽起來一點也不像勝利</li>
</ul>
</div><p>Reality crashed into robotics, and reality won. iRobot had previously offered itself to Amazon, under the banner of a desirable smart home appliance. Amazon didn't complete the deal due to regulatory opposition.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>現實撞上了機器人技術，而現實贏了。iRobot 曾向亞馬遜提供自己，作為一種理想的智能家居電器。由於監管反對，亞馬遜沒有完成這筆交易。</p>
</div><p>Household appliances, it turns out, are immune to smart homesmanship. Look through Amazon's own website for Alexa-enabled cookers, fridges, microwaves, washing machines, or anything beyond lights and plugs, and the choices are few, the prices ridiculous. Reality met the smart home, and reality won.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>事實證明，家用電器對智能家居的影響是免疫的。瀏覽亞馬遜自己的網站，尋找支持 Alexa 的烹飪器具、冰箱、微波爐、洗衣機，或者任何超出燈光和插頭的產品，選擇寥寥，價格荒謬。現實與智能家居相遇，現實贏了。</p>
</div><p>This is why iRobot failed, in a market where investment in AI and hype about robotics are off the scale. It bears the stigma of reality. Its promise was simple to understand, easy to want, easy to buy into. Once.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>這就是 iRobot 失敗的原因，在一個對人工智能投資和機器人熱潮的市場中。它承載着現實的污名。它的承諾簡單易懂，令人渴望，容易接受。曾經。</p>
</div><p>Like all other consumer robotics, with the arguable exception of the time-shifting VCR, it could not take very much reality. The AI investors know this. They know there's too big a gap to bridge to make Roomba the next Hoover, and they know actual consumer experience means we know it too.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>像所有其他消費類機器人一樣，除了可爭辯的時間轉移錄像機外，它無法承受太多現實。人工智能投資者對此心知肚明。他們知道，要讓 Roomba 成為下一個 Hoover，存在着太大的鴻溝，他們也知道實際的消費者體驗意味着我們也知道這一點。</p>
</div><p>Hence the concentration by the reality-exempt community on humanoid robots that will be beyond consumer experience for decades, if ever, let alone able to vacuum under the sofa and cope with the unmentionable pet residue they encounter there.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>因此，現實免疫社區集中精力於人形機器人，這些機器人在幾十年內都將超出消費者體驗，甚至無法在沙發下吸塵，處理它們在那兒遇到的不可言説的寵物殘留物。</p>
</div><p>As virtual reality, autonomous vehicles, and Microsoft's mobile OS strategies show, it's easier to sell dreams than to dispel disappointment. Don't believe it of VR and Autopilot? Skip back ten years to what was promised, then back to today to see how much a part of your life those things actually are. When a technology promises to take on reality in your place, it better not miss. It generally does.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>正如虛擬現實、自動駕駛汽車和微軟的移動操作系統策略所示，銷售夢想比消除失望要容易。你不相信虛擬現實和自動駕駛？回顧十年前的承諾，再回到今天，看看這些東西實際上在你生活中佔據了多大一部分。當一項技術承諾代替你面對現實時，它最好不要失誤。它通常會失誤。</p>
</div><p>Perhaps Roomba would have fared better in its fight for life had it described itself as an agentic appliance. Accurate enough and thus, we suspect, entirely unwelcome. The parable of the robot that wanted to clean up but merely sucked is far too close for comfort. ®</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>或許，如果 Roomba 將自己描述為一種代理電器，它在生存鬥爭中會表現得更好。足夠準確，因此我們懷疑，這完全不受歡迎。想要清理卻僅僅吸塵的機器人的寓言，實在讓人感到不安。®</p>
</div>

Roomba 的失敗是因為它表現得不夠好