Conversational and generative AI

Concerns about AI are all around, but its future role is inevitable.  There it is, one consumer well-publicized survey after another, whether it is the WSJ,  Pew Research or AARP,  even as adoption in business, healthcare and other industries grows.  Consumers continue to express worry – but in the meantime…82% of companies are either using or exploring use of AI today. That parallels the senior living and care organizations interviewed for this new report – there is a combination of evaluating, limited use, and actually in use with benefit. Interviewees contributed ideas, actual projects and concerns, helping to shape the new report, The Future of AI in Senior Living and Care.

Aging in place is a business opportunity as much as it is a personal strategy.  The apparent enthusiasm for aging in place has fueled interest among home builders. Consumer aging in place desires provide work for home remodelers, adding features that make a home more accessible as people age. But for older adults, the motivation for aging in place is also an economic necessity.  The monthly cost of moving into senior housing, above $5500 nationwide, is out of the reach of most people. Remaining in a home and planning modest remodeling modifications will be the approach for most who want to stay.

Asking ChatGPT a question on an iPhone returns a detailed answer.  Of course, it’s slightly different when asked again. The question: “What devices are useful for monitoring older adults in their home?”  The­­ categories (and sub-categories) were not surprising – you can give it a try yourself.  They included medical alerts, smart home devices, cameras and video monitoring, remote health monitoring fall detection sensors, GPS tracking devices, medication management, environmental monitoring.   On the iPhone, adding companion robots – and an observation: “These devices, especially when used together, can create a safer and more supportive environment for older adults living independently.”

An old report, the core concept of Connected Living was excellent and predictive.  Thirteen years ago, AARP sponsored research that posed questions about technology’s future role in connecting older adults with families, resources and each other. With input from 30 industry experts, the research attempted to determine how technology could better serve older adults moving forward. The result was a 2011 report called Connected Living for Social Aging: Designing Technology for All. You won’t find it on AARP’s website – it’s too old.  But it is very interesting, especially given that year's low technology adoption and extremely limited use among older adults compared to today. The report accurately predicted the major role technology would take in their lives as they aged, though experts were not exactly sure how.

The month of May -- and the hostility about AI overflowed.  Given the pace of change in AI technology – both the software and its rate of adoption – it’s curious that recently the Wall Street Journal published an aging survey about what customers don’t use and/or like about chatbots. These observations include the usual: ‘hallucinated’ answers; lack of customer awareness that they are talking to a chatbot (really???); the chatbot is too nosy. Or it asked too many questions; or couldn’t handle two questions. Which would make this article, like much of media coverage of AI, sound negative. Too late, adoption happened anyway. This is a commentary, perhaps, on the nature of news media in general, who either are mirroring the AI skepticism in the public, or more typically promoting it. But clearly with chatbot adoption, the public is paying new attention. Sigh.  Here are the four blog posts from May, 2024:

It’s 2024 -- chatbots, yuck? Given the pace of change in AI technology – both the software and its rate of adoption – it’s curious that recently the Wall Street Journal published an aging survey about what customers don’t use and/or like about chatbots. These observations include the usual: ‘hallucinated’ answers; lack of customer awareness that they are talking to a chatbot (really???); too nosy. Or it asked too many questions; couldn’t handle two questions. Which would make this article, like much of media coverage of AI, sound negative. Too late, adoption happened anyway. This is a commentary, perhaps, on the nature of news media in general, who either are mirroring the AI skepticism in the public, or promoting it. But clearly with chatbot adoption, the public is paying new attention.