THESIS products

While there is no shortage of analysis on THESIS, most only continue the discussions started by Pygmallion’s Dilemma and Man in the Mirror; they focus on artificial intelligence as a concept, or detail the events of the war, or use the company’s actions as a launching point for sociopolitical commentary.

There is less discussion about THESIS as a business.

It is said that design is closing the gap between what a product does and why it exists. For THESIS, that gap was very wide indeed. While competitors like iRobot made very useful robots with minimal programs, THESIS persisted in creating machines that were startlingly intelligent, but their usefulness seemed like an afterthought.

In the end, we still do not know how AI was created. We can only peek through the keyhole at those responsible.

In some ways we can frame the history of THESIS, at least its rise to prominence and subsequent fall, in terms of its various commercial models.

Though there are undoubtedly experimental and half-finished projects that never left THESIS’ laboratory, there are eight different commercial products, each exemplifying, or some would say even representing, a stage in the thinking of Crane and the other THESIS founders. All THESIS commercial models are as follows, chronologically:

Laundromatic Breakfast Mate Helpmate Helpmate Porcelain Collection Helpmate II Angelus Prescience Octavia

THESIS came onto the scene around the peak of “intelligent” as a marketing buzzword, as in Neocell’s slogan “your phone is smart, but ours is intelligent.”

Early THESIS prototypes were strange contraptions made in small batches.

First was a vacuum that told jokes. Though some found it amusing and there were a few positive reviews, people decided that they had no interest in having a conversation with their vacuum cleaner, especially if it meant a device that was three times as expensive as iRobot’s best selling vacuum.

Determined to build a niche in the luxury market, THESIS also tried its hand at making “intelligent cars” which were marketed as able to have a conversation with you while driving, as well as give you turn by turn directions and other driving related tips. The biggest selling point was that each one had a unique personality “no two alike,” they said.

These were both catastrophic commercial failures. THESIS produced a few as prototypes, but failed to get investment to make any more. The few who bought these devices gave mixed reviews. The praise was along the lines of “unique” and “innovative” while the majority found having so-called personalities inside their everyday devices “gimmicky”, “pointless” or even “creepy.”

Creepy is a word that seemed to follow all THESIS products, a descriptor that was also consistently applied to Clemens’ other work.

But these were simply experiments, according to THESIS. It’s also never been clear what kind of software these machines run on — that is, if they could be considered genuinely intelligent, or simply a set of programmed responses which “pretend” to have a conversation, the way phones have been doing for decades. THESIS own statement is that they have a “crude approximation of intelligence.” How crude, and what exactly that means, is unclear.

This has led to controversy about what rights to grant these machines. Consensus seems to be that they probably do possess some form of intelligence beyond pre-programmed responses, but nowhere near the intelligence of a human. One AI expert said that “(the vacuum) seems to have real intelligence, but something along the lines of small mammals like cats. And like cats, they are skilled enough at what they do to appear more intelligent than they really are.” When asked what that meant in terms of ethical treatment of these creatures, he was hesitant to respond.

“I should rather leave it in the hands of professional ethicists, or in any case people more equipped to deciding the rights of others. But if I had to make a recommendation, intuitively, I would have to say that we should give them rights similar to pets: that are not free from rule, but free from undue cruelty. As for what cruelty would be to a vacuum, I couldn’t tell you.”