This is why everyone not in technology hates us.
I'm a technologist. I get it, on some level it's kinda cool that we have the technology to bring this thing into the world, and so of course one wants to build it and make it real.
Breadboarding it as a fun weekend project is one thing. But making it exist as a product sold on Walmart.com is another.
What is the point, exactly? I mean this as a serious question to think about, not as a blanket dismissal. Any object, by the mere fact that it exists, demands something from the people it is put in contact with. What behaviors does it encourage, what beliefs does it promote, what skills does it exercise?
If I spend 60 minutes with my kids writing a physical letter to Santa, then going out and putting it in a mailbox, I have a fair sense of the answers to the questions above, and whether those answers are things I want to encourage or not.
If they spend 60 minutes interacting with this object, I'm not so sure I feel so confident about the answers.
While I totally agree with you that I wouldn't want my kids exposed to this thing, that fact alone doesn't make it vastly different from tons of media where I don't know what the content is going to be. One of the worst messages embedded in video games and RPGs, in my opinion, is to implicitly accept that someone else designed a world that you get lost in and play in without really understanding that you're being subtly constrained by limitations and manipulated by opinions written into the game. So I'm a believer in teaching kids to create in an open ended way before they get lost or brainwashed in someone else's artificial world. I think you either are the creator or the player, when you spend days and weeks inside an imaginary world. I wouldn't want my kids to be players.
As far as an object just existing and demanding something, though, I feel like you could say the same about Teddy Ruxpin or a singing bass, both of which fit well into comedy and horror, because they sit on a creepy edge between kitsch and nightmare.
How is roleplay with this object different then other toys? If you get lost in a D&D game is that bad because the world isn't real? Getting lost in Myst and making Doom WADs was a joy I have always been trying to recapture. I am constantly looking for a way to do that for others.
What do you think of my take here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575175? These 'LLM Role play' toys have hit a real fun spot with my kids.
Games are limited in their responses to the player
AI on the other hand
https://dailyai.com/2025/05/chatgpt-is-making-people-think-t...
And this happens to adults who know it’s AI
> How is roleplay with this object different than other toys?
Traditional role play is driven by the child and their imagination, and is essentially free of constraints. This is driven by the technology, follows a narrow script, and only allows for a single mode of engagement. Not saying that makes it good or bad, but they're clearly 2 different modes of play.
> If you get lost in a D&D game is that bad because the world isn't real
D&D is fundamentally a social activity (by definition, you can't play D&D alone)...
> Getting lost in Myst
...enjoying a piece of art built by a creative team with an artistic vision...
> making Doom WADs
... an open ended, constructive activity that exercises various skills and that gives you something to share/show for it.
Do you really not see how all of the above are fundamentally different from interacting with this black box that pretends to be something it's not (a human voice), is fundamentally extractive because of the technology it runs on (pay more for more time with it), not to get into the fact that a) the data gets siphoned off to a corporation with its own profit motives and b) there is absolutely 0 guarantee that the simulation can't go off rails?
> These 'LLM Role play' toys have hit a real fun spot with my kids.
Coca-Cola and McDonald's hit a real fun spot with kids as well. This on its own is a weak argument of value.
Clearly playing with this for a bit isn't going to be catastrophic for the child (although $99 for 60 minutes of play, with pay-for-more beyond that point, is a pretty darn steep asking price, if you ask me - and if the child enjoys it, it means they will be begging their parent to cough up more money for more time - a pretty poor success case for a toy. Normally once a toy is bought, infinite time can be spent with it with no further financial transaction).
Is it desirable to build a world where kids spend more time with this category of toy over others (in effect priming them for being an AI girlfriend/boyfriend app subscriber a few years down the line)?
My experience with D&D was on the computer. I didn’t have friends that would play with me. I didn’t feel constrained by having computer driving the story. Games like Baldurs Gate pulled away from unhappy things happening otherwise.
id software had a profit motive right? As a kid it didn’t occur to me. I just nagged my parents to pay for Doom/Heretic.
I also have done everything to encourage/empower DIY. My hope is that users that are curious can learn more/build it themselves.
> Normally once a toy is bought, infinite time can be spent with it with no further financial transaction
I can’t think of any case where that is true. Books/toys all get worn and may need to be replaced. I have bought my son the same toy forklift three times because it breaks and he really loves it.
> Is it desirable to build a world where kids spend more time with this category of toy over others
I would rather see my kids play with this technology than consumption only (videos). Other play is better then doing Santa role play, but this isn’t close to be worse at all.
I 100% agree with Sean that the computer is an exploration machine. There are lots of net positive things for kids (and non-kids) that LLMs make possible. Just like there were lots of net positive things that an Internet connection makes possible.
Of course there are things technologies can do that are bad. For kids. For adults. For societies. But I build this kind of voice+LLM stuff, too, and have a kid, and the exploration, play, and learning opportunities here are really, really amazing.
For example, we are within reach of giving every child in the world a personalized, infinitely patient tutor that can cover any subject at the right level for that child. This doesn't replace classroom teachers. It augments what you can do in school, and what kids will be able to do outside of school hours.
My guy, such a bad faith argument to say “books and toys wear out too” to justify an API locked toy that costs $100 for one hour.
There are books, lego bricks, and other toys in my family that have now gone through three generations of kids and are ready for a fourth.
I understand you’re fighting hard to defend the thing you built, but come on.
And yeah, if you’re comparing this to TikTok brainrot, sure, I guess it’s one step above.
Funny you said this because I made the same point about RPGs in a sibling comment, except I think RPGs are bad for child development. But the point that there's no fundamental difference I think is true.
Can you expand on this? Why are they bad? I don't understand how RPGs would be bad. It's basically group story telling. Stories and imagination are so important for kids. It's how we learn to interpret other peoples perspectives, or about feelings that we haven't encountered IRL yet. What about books with big expansive worlds and stories. Are they also bad? Secondly is this a common concern for other parents? I'm interested to learn more.
That's feels like such a luddite take. 50 years from now AI powered toys will be so ubiquitous and common to people, they will barely blink.
Just imagine how people must've failed against the first electronic toys 80 years ago, or Pokémon 30 years ago. Ask yourself... if this makes you depressed, what exact kind of new technology would make you happy?
The one that doesn’t wiretap by kids.
> 50 years from now AI powered toys will be so ubiquitous and common to people, they will barely blink.
There was a time where people thought the same about nuclear energy. That every device is powered by its own small reactor. They sold even radioactive toys and medicine.
Or think of plastics. A technological success story but now we find plastics everywhere. On the bottom of the oceans and inside our bodies.
50 years from now people may ask why we wasted so much resources on AI.
If anyone is left to ask that question.
Machines passed the Turing test 3 years ago. They now produce art, music, and poetry indistinguishable from what humans once created. In 10-20 years time, it is likely they will take over virtually all forms of human labor.
This constant negative sentiment on the internet... the brushing off of what has happened. I can only explain it as a form of fear. The fear of the end of human work, human relationships, human interactions...
But I think within that fear is a lack of appreciation of the magnitude of what is happening now.
>> indistinguishable from what humans once created
It's distinguishable from original art in that it is, by definition, derivative and unoriginal.
What percentage of humans do you consider capable of producing art that is non derivative, unoriginal, and aesthetically pleasing at the same time?
You may be able to deduce that percentage from the percentage of humans who make art, and the percentage of art that contains original elements. (Whether it's aesthetically pleasing has no bearing on whether it is art).
All art is derivative to some extent, because all artists have absorbed cultural influences and have seen prior art. But some art contains elements and ideas which are not synthesized from prior art. You can prove this. If art were only synthesized from prior art, then there would never be any addition to its vocabulary. There are conceptual "breakthroughs" which cannot happen just by looking at and iterating upon existing art.
If an AI had been trained only on classical Greek sculpture, it could not invent Cubism or Impressionism or Surrealism. Not just that: It would have no reason to invent these schools of art. The only impetus it might have would be if a human asked it to invent a school of art; and then it could only draw upon its training data.
That's why to call AI output "art" is to fundamentally misunderstand what art is. Art is not the final result or product. An aesthetically pleasing painting is not automatically art, outside the limited commercial sense. Art is the intention of the artist and the unique characteristics of the artist made manifest in the creative process which required discovering something new. The actual output, the thing on the canvas, is just evidence of that process, it is not the art itself.
More often than not, this is also a physical process involving trial and error with real materials in a world that is many orders of magnitude more complicated than what AI currently understands.
An equation on a blackboard is not a mathematical proof, it is the residue of the logic of the proof. In the same way, a painting is the residue of art. A sculpture is a residue of the artistic process by which a person learned to turn a shapeless mass into an imagined 3D object.
This is why AI can only make simulacrum of the final result of art, the same way it can simulate coming up with a proof for an algorithm. But as we frequently see when we ask it to analyze or create an algorithm, it cannot provide a true proof, because it cannot think of failure modes unless we explicitly point them out, nor can it think of concepts that are not in its existing canon of knowledge.
Maybe with AGI this will change. But passing a Turing test and making pictures doesn't mean it can actually create anything like art.
This sounds a bit like copium. There's more than one AI based technique for generating images, and its almost trivial to ask an ai to both come up with an original art style and to generate images in what it says to be original.
There are AIs that come up with working mathematical proofs now and they are getting better at it. Your perception of the current SOTA is about 18 months out of date
My father put together Legos as a child, as did I and as will my children. Toys do not exist to satisfy some inherent agenda of technological progress, they exist to entertain children. Why you think we would need a LLM for that is baffling.
I honestly can't tell if this is trolling. LEGO bricks are pretty new technology, in the scheme of things. The original LEGO company "binding brick" was created in the late 1940s.
Of course you don't "need" an LLM to have a great toy. You also don't "need" injection-molded plastic. But if you have access to one or both, that can be pretty great!
Source: I wrote the spec for the first version of the LEGO Mindstorms programming language. These days I build a lot of voice+LLM stuff, some of it for big companies, some of it for myself and my kid.
> 50 years from now AI powered toys will be so ubiquitous and common to people, they will barely blink.
If the other take is luddite, then what's this? Source: "dude trust me"?