User:Coms3500gyals/sandbox

= Roomba = The Roomba, first released in 2002, is an artificially intelligent (A.I.) home vacuum cleaner created by iRobot (Kurt, 2007, p.4). The Roomba, in relation to the field of Communication and Media Studies has been a source of controversy in relation to what household A.I. technologies mean to consumers.

Cao Fei
From a cultural perspective, A.I. such as the Roomba seem to flourish creativity as a technological sublime (Young, 2019). Dr.Young (2019) explains the concept of technological sublime through James Carey’s study of the historical reception of new media in which Carey examines “the rhetoric of the electrical sublime”, a rhetoric that celebrates the spiritual-political hopes of the annihilation of time and space. Dr.Young (2019) also views Friedrich Kittler’s conception of the sublime as one propelled by the influence of war and catastrophe. For example, the artist Cao Fei uses the Roomba as a medium to represent her own hopes and fears surrounding technology, thus using the concept of technological sublime. This is viewed through her piece Rumba II: Nomad as she uses the Roomba vacuum as an alien object, something out of this world that collect the remains of a demolished urban centre, a commentary on urbanization and the rapid renewal and demise of Chinese communities (Athens Biennale, 2018). This alien object introduces new ways of viewing the world as well as new ways of living. Here the Roomba highlights both the celebration of the spiritual-political hopes of modern society, yet also the fears of modernization and urbanization in which the Roomba represents a post-apocalyptic, post-human dystopia which is so commonly viewed with Fei’s work (Lynn, 2017). Fei used the Roomba to represent extensive labor, ever-changing urban space, and the display of economic power (Lynn, 2017).

In comparison to how the Roomba is seen in China, the cartoon called The Jetsons demonstrates a similar A.I. cleaning device called, “Rosie the Robot” (Kurt, 2007, p.5). Rosie is depicted as a cleaning robot that has wheels for legs (Appendix A). Other than The Jetsons, similar depictions of a floor cleaning robot resembling the Roomba have made an appearance in North American television shows such as American Dad, Arrested Development, and Gilmore Girls (Evans, 2019). Specifically, one of the characters from Arrested Development states how she “fired her housekeeper” and found an “easy replacement”, implying the Roomba (Evans, 2019). These shows again exemplify the technological sublime of the Roomba through artistic representation in North American tv shows.

Social Effects
There are many examples where the Roomba has socially constructed the wonders and horrors of A.I. in society. Does an increase of cohabitation between humans and autonomous machines, such as the popular Roomba vacuum cleaner, limit or even exclude variety as a result of computer vision’s dependence on consistency (Niquille, 2019, p. 90)? In 2015, a story about a Roomba “eating the hair of a South Korean woman” sleeping on the floor of her apartment appeared in the news (Niquille, 2019, p. 90). The narrative was formulated as a dystopian “man vs machine” scenario when the question should have surrounded the robot’s navigational parameters, as it was evidently not trained for the event of someone sleeping on the floor (Niquille, 2019, p. 90). The incident thus occurred by design, not by accident (Niquille, 2019, p. 90). Again this example evokes feelings of anxieties of what A.I. is truly capable of.

In addition, the Roomba demonstrates the development of a service that is better adapted to women which ultimately improves their lives at home (Martin, 2000, p. 340). Specifically, the Roomba liberates women from doing household work such as cleaning and allows them to focus on other “leisurely” activities around the home (Mostly associated with childcare as depicted in Appendix B).

In other aspects, the Roomba implies a sexist tendency towards women similar to the telephone. This sexist messaging about women is demonstrated through Michelle Martin’s Gender and Telephone Culture, where she mentions that women compared to men are presumingly the listeners on party lines (2000, p. 339). There are also present cultural expectations of women cleaning and tending the house which is also demonstrated in many advertisements that take place in domestic spaces (Bailey, 2012, p. 7). For example, the iRobot commercial for the Roomba displays a mother teaching her young daughter how to fold laundry, thus, letting the Roomba do the dirty work of cleaning the floors (See Appendix B). This commercial perpetuates gender roles and sets expectations on how women should be responsible for the cleanliness of a family home (Bailey, 2012, p. 11). Appendix B also demonstrates how mostly women in commercials prompt girls and boys alike to hold this expectation of women to be in charge of cleaning (Bailey, 2012, p. 7). This is because the screenshot shows not only a woman, but a mother who explicitly teaches her daughter how to fold laundry, instilling the gender norm within her daughter at a very young age. This creates a never-ending expectation upon females, creating a snowball effect into raising women as primary housekeepers.

An example that demonstrates female competency with technology is through the use of Mighty Tape (Bailey, 2012, p. 9). According to Bailey (2012), when men are not around to repair technology, women rely on Mighty Tape as “quick fixes” for repairing machines around the home such as vacuum hoses (p. 9). This is because people assume that women are not as competent at repairing technological devices as men and thus, they rely on tape to “fix” the technology to make it “work”. However, the Roomba is a simple device designed to be more user-friendly with women because it aligns with their “low-level” of technological competence.

According to the lecture, women are responsible for ensuring a proper and tidy home to which their husbands can comfortably return to from a long day at work (Young, 2019). The Roomba devalues Mommy’s labour as it is part of what the media is trying to replace and automate rather than improve domestic living space (Young, 2019).

Furthermore, the Roomba can be considered a “Mommy app” that outsources the labour of care (Young, 2019). The activity of cleaning is a feminized process, in which “Mommy” is expected to perform these tasks and clean up the family’s mess. With the introduction of the Roomba into many family homes, “Mommy’s” hidden labour further devalued as A.I. continues to replace “Mommy” in an even more efficient way. Through the enactment of gender roles, women (especially mothers) maintain the goal of providing their family with comfortable and clean domestic spaces. The Roomba again acts as a replacement of the female figure within the household. Roombas are mass produced in factory assembly lines, therefore the products standardization allows this process to be easily repeated within homes around the world.

Political Effects
As much as the Roomba can be envisioned as a utopian dream in contemporary society, there are also some anxieties that come with its functions. A.I. technology such as the Roomba maximizes and amplifies its inefficiencies, the surveillance and control over sensor networks, social media tracking, and home plan recognition (Whittaker et al, 2018, p. 7).

Although the Roomba has one task of vacuuming the floor, it may also have some inefficiencies as it is simply a robot, meaning that there are many aspects of human life that the robot is not capable of sensing. For example, a Roomba vacuumed up and killed a poisonous snake in Israel (Calo, 2011, p. 13). If a Roomba were to run over the tail of a household pet, then it is most likely that pet owners may want to ensure that proper legal actions are enforced as a consequence for the device endangering their pets (Calo, 2011, p.13). Similarly, the Roomba ran over animal feces and continued its cleaning cycle around the house, spreading the mess over “every conceivable surface” (Solon, 2016). Again, pet owners may want to take legal enforcement on the Roomba’s manufacturer, iRobot for not warning users of unexpected events. A spokesman from iRobot states, “we generally tell people to try not to schedule your vacuum if you know you have dogs that may create such a mess. With animals anything can happen” (Solon, 2016). This statement implies that iRobot their company would not be held responsible with regards to this specific event occurring.

Furthermore, if the Roomba fails to perform the given task of vacuuming, or if it performs unsafely, then iRobot could potentially be pursued in court (Calo, 2011, p.13). However, to reduce the risk of liability, iRobot must disclose what might go wrong and either provide warnings or modify the device (Calo, 2011, p.13). According to Calo (2011), if the Roomba's design leads to an injury due to its normal use, then iRobot may face liability (p. 13). However, if a consumer were to modify or "hack" the Roomba to perform a function it was not designed for, such as reenact the 1980's video game Frogger, where the Roomba would act as the frog that crosses a highway during traffic, then the consumer would be responsible if an accident were to occur (Calo, 2011, p.14).

The potential concerns of home plan hacking not only threatens individual privacy, but also accelerates the automation of surveillance, and thus its reach and pervasiveness (Whittaker et al, 2018, p. 8).The Roomba being a smart vacuum has the ability to create a floor plan of the user’s home while cleaning to develop a clear pathway and avoid bumping into stationary objects (McMahon, 2018, p. 2525). For example, the Roomba not only knows the floor plan of the user's home but also knows the room in which the user's child sleeps in, thus creating the feeling of anxiety around A.I. (McMahon, 2018, p. 2525). This is because the Roomba is aware of the room it consistently bumps into toys on the floor (McMahon, 2018, p. 2525). Therefore, if this data was sold to third parties such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, or Google, they would then gain access to information about the consumer, their home, and lifestyle in which they did not originally have access to (Fordham, 2018, p. 3). For example, with access to the Roomba’s floor plan data, large technology companies could estimate the amount of household income for each user or determine how many people lived in the home, which creates a new set of ways of targeted advertising (Fordham, 2018, p. 3).

An increased number of experiments have been using A.I. technology “in the wild” without proper protocols for notice, consent, or accountability in which many of them are untested or poorly designed for their tasks (Whittaker et al, 2018, p.8). Specifically, more automated systems are being put to government use that directly affect individuals and communities without established accountability structures (p. 8). For example, if Roombas collected user data for government use such as Statistics Canada instead of targeted advertising, it would result in illegal violations of individual rights. This is because there was no informed consent or legal documentation of users granting permission of their private home data being used for government use (Whittaker et al, 2018, p. 8).

It is important to remember that technology with A.I. such as the Roomba demonstrates the imperfect reflections of human imperfections as we can both have outright failures and unintended consequences as man and machine are never perfect (Klass, 2019).

Environmental Effects
When thinking about the direct components to create A.I. systems, we tend to forget about the extraction of natural resources that have severe implications on the environment. Similar to many modern technologies, the Roomba is physically made from natural resources that are extracted from the Earth. Specifically, these resources derive from sand to create the glass components, metals such as lithium and nickel (Profis, 2014) to form the batteries as well as other recycled plastics and ceramics to create the body and remaining internal system (Jabil, n.d). Currently, there are large quantities of lithium being extracted from the bottom of the Earth’s oceans and in countries such as Bolivia to power our devices today, with the Roomba being one of them (Videmsek, 2019). Prior to the 700 series model, the Roomba generally used lithium-based batteries.

As the demand for lithium increases in the Bolivian market, international companies may resort to removing lithium from the Earth’s brine by heating the metal which requires an intensive amount of energy to operate (Katwala, 2018). According to Katwala (2018), lithium extraction inevitably damages the Earth’s soil and causes air contamination, thus creating the most environmental concern (Katwala, 2018). In addition, the Roomba’s battery has a limited lifespan of 400 charges (Profis, 2017). These devices are built to be used for no more than a few years and once consumed they are thrown away as waste (Crawford & Jowler, 2018).

However, the Roomba 700 series introduces the Nickel-Cadmium (NiCD) battery which is a toxic metal and cannot be disposed of in landfills (Battery university, n.d). By extracting nickel-rich ores themselves, combined with the labour of crushing and transporting by conveyor belt, can create dust in the air that contains high concentrations of potentially toxic metals, including nickel itself, copper, cobalt, and chromium (Opray, 2017).

According to Crawford and Jowler (2019), the elements and materials used to create batteries for modern technology go through rapid periods of excavation, smelting, mixing, and logistical transportation. Although lithium and nickel metals are abundant in the Earth’s crust and are considered “rare Earth metals”, the extraction process can also be costly and highly polluting (Crawford & Jowler, 2019). The smelting process also requires a large amount of energy and combines recycled metals with lithium or nickel in which it is almost impossible to trace components of the Roomba to their original source (Crawford & Jowler, 2019). Overall, technology and nature are intertwined as this extraction process requires thinking about labour, natural resources, and data in order to create the Roomba vacuum cleaner.

The Beginning
The design of the Roomba was inspired by a previous floor-sweeping robot, the Rug Warrior, that was developed at the 1989 A.I. Olympics held by Prof. Rodney Brooks’ Mobile Robot Group (Jones, 2006). In 1999, Paul Sandin and Joseph L. Jones proposed to iRobot that they investigate building a floor-cleaning robot targeted at consumers (Jones, 2006). The next designed robot was called Scamp, a vacuum cleaner with an employed carpet sweeper cleaning mechanism and a force-sensing bumper (Jones, 2006). The Scamp could also anticipate collisions using several infrared emitter/detector pairs mounted on the skirt (Jones, 2006). Design relied on inexpensive, standard components (Jones, 2006). The shape of the Roomba is round to maximize the robot’s ability to escape from obstacles-- a round robot can always turn in place (Jones, 2006). The power system used standard, rechargeable batteries (Jones, 2006). The robot's microprocessor is a modest one, possessing a clock speed of 16 MHz, 256 B of RAM, and about 30 input/output (I/O) lines (Jones, 2006). Roomba’s sensors include a 2-b, front-mounted bump sensor, cliff and wall sensors, a room confinement sensor, drive wheel-mounted shaft encoders, and a battery voltage sensor (Jones, 2006). Newer models also include dirt sensors and a stasis sensor (triggered when the robot tries but fails to move). A total of five motors are incorporated into Roomba’s actuators (Jones, 2006). Two motors power the differential drive mobility system, and one motor is devoted to the main brush, the side brush, and the vacuum (Jones, 2006). A behavior-based programming scheme directs Roomba (Jones, 2006). Roomba's cleaning strategy, combining random bounce and wall following, is designed to maximally cover the floor, even in the presence of clutter (Jones, 2006).

Roomba Product Line
The design of the Roomba is an embodiment of Rodney Brooks term subsumption architecture, in which increasingly complex behaviours arise from the combination of simple behaviours (Kurt, 2007, p.4). Instead of viewing A.I. as a complex machine, one needs to break the machinery down to a set of base principles (Kurt, 2007, p.4). The Roomba was produced in order to perform two functions, the first was to go toward things it likes (dirt, power) and the second was to go away from things it dislikes (walls, stairs) (Kurt, 2007, p.4). The Roomba serves the purpose of letting consumers take charge of their valuable time and energy (Kurt, 2007, p.4). While a consumer is doing something else, the Roomba is performing the function of vacuuming their floors.

First Generation
The first generation of Roomba was released in 2002 and could clean small, medium, or large rooms when instructed through S, M, and L buttons (Kurt, 2007, p.6). It contained one virtual wall--a special battery-powered infrared emitter used to create virtual boundaries–and a plug-in battery charger (Kurt, 2007, p.6). This simplistic design was done on purpose, as designers wanted customers to easily understand how the robot will benefit them and be able to view how this AI could easily be integrated into their lives (Jones, 2006).

Second Generation
The second Roomba generation was further developed as the A.I. now contained a dirt sensor component, improvements in battery life and cleaning efficiency (Kurt, 2007, p.6). There were two models within this generation (Kurt, 2007, p.6). The first was the Roomba Pro, which was released in 2003, with dirt sensor and spot cleaning (Kurt, 2007, p.6). The second was the Roomba Pro Elite, which was also released in 2003, and included spot and max cleaning as well as a refurbished red colouring (Kurt, 2007, p.6).

Third Generation
The third Roomba generation again, contained a dirt sensor, yet the addition was the home base dock for self-charging, a remote control, a scheduling capability, and a serial port (Kurt, 2007, p.8). There were seven models developed within the third generation. The first is the Roomba Red (2004), the second model is the Roomba Sage (2004), the third is the Roomba Discovery (2004), the fourth is the Roomba Discovery SE (2004), the fifth is the Roomba Pink Ribbon Edition (2005), the sixth is the Roomba 2.1 (2005), and the seventh is the Roomba Scheduler (2005) (Kurt, 2007, p.8-12). The important distinction here begins at the Roomba 2.1, which contained over twenty enhancements to the software and hardware (Kurt, 2007, p.10). The software (AWARE robotic intelligence) includes improvements to the cleaning algorithms to enhance efficiency and room coverage (Kurt, 2007, p.10). The hardware enhancements includes better battery-charging circuitry, improved brushes and sensors, and a better vacuum design (Kurt, 2007, p.10). The other noteworthy improvement was made in the Roomba Scheduler, which contained a Dust Bin Alert feature to alert consumers when the dust bin is full (Kurt, 2007, p.12).

The Roomba Today
The more modern models of the Roomba include more advanced technologies. The models include a Clean Base Automatic Dirt Disposal, Imprint Technology, Dual Multi-Surface Rubber Brushes, vSLAM Technology, Full Suite of Sensors, 3-Stage Cleaning System, Dirt Detect Technology and Dual Multi-Surface Brushes (iRobot, n.d.). Clean Base Automatic Dirt Disposal automatically empties its contents into the garbage bin, thus freeing more of the consumers’ time (iRobot, n.d.). Imprint Technology allows the Roomba to communicate with each other and the rest of the consumers’ home (iRobot, n.d.). Dual Multi-Surface Rubber Brushes are designed with rubber treads which pick-up small dust to large debris (iRobot, n.d.). vSLAM Technology uses optical sensors to capture data points, allowing the Roomba to map out it’s surroundings (iRobot, n.d.). Full Suite Sensors allow the Roomba to “intelligently” navigate along certain surfaces and around certain objects (iRobot, n.d.). The 3-Stage Cleaning System contains Dual Multi-Surface Brushes which allow for debris pick up both on carpets and hard floors (iRobot, n.d.). Dirt Detect Technology is a sensory alert that communicates which areas of the home contain more debris, and also maintains the cleanliness of high-traffic spots (iRobot, n.d.). Lastly, Dual Multi-Surface Brushes loosen dirt and navigates the debris for the vacuum to extract and pull it in (iRobot, n.d.).

Production
In correspondence through email with Adam Kramer, Vice President of Investor Relations for iRobot, I was able to collect information about the production process of Roomba vacuums (November 28, 2019). Kramer (2019) stated that Roombas and other iRobot products (i.e., Braava) are manufactured by three different outside manufacturing companies. Through September 2019, those manufacturers were located in China (Kramer, 2019). Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2019, one of iRobots contract manufacturers, Jabil, commenced Roomba production in Malaysia (Kramer, 2019). iRobot chairman and chief executive officer Colin Angle claimed that this transition to manufacturing in Malaysia is part of the company’s initiative to “diversify iRobot’s manufacturing and supply chain capabilities while also mitigating the company’s exposure to current prospective tariffs on products that are imported from China” (iRobot, 2019).

Jabil has a unit committed to communications, motion control, optics and sensor technologies which offer unparalleled mechatronic solutions for autonomous robotics and systems (Jabil, n.d.). Jabil has autonomous systems for manufacturing products with human employees working side-by-side with the machines (Jabil, n.d.). This offers high-speed assembly through automation and robotic equipment (Jabil, n.d.). Considering Roombas are A.I. that can communicate with one another and also other devices, Jabil creates the required sensors and connectivity elements for these functions to perform properly, and use materials such as glass, textiles, plastics and ceramics in the production process (Jabil, n.d.).

Distribution
The distribution process of the Roomba hides all material things in the world that are needed to make this technology possible (Young, 2019). For example, we do not think about the extraction of lithium or nickel nor do we think about the production of these elements into batteries, or the standardized process in making Roombas on a conveyor belt and transporting them to Amazon warehouses. These crucial components are all hidden in the background of the distribution of the Roomba.

iRobot has many outside distributors for their Roomba vacuums in the United States and Canada, and they also allow purchasing directly from iRobot on their website and through their call centre (iRobot, n.d.). One of the main distributors of Roomba vacuums is Amazon (iRobot, n.d.). As Sam Adler-Bell (2019) witnessed within an Amazon distribution centre, Amazon workers are responsible for ensuring products are shipped in the most efficient way possible. This means unsafe work environments and labor-saving tricks which largely benefit the company over the workers themselves are used (Adler-Bell, 2019). Workers, whether stowing, picking, sorting, or delivering, are expected to perform at a fast pace while also maintaining accuracy (Adler-Bell, 2019). The employees of the warehouse have two main functions: they are either a “picker” or a “packer” (Adler-Bell, 2019). The “pickers” locate the correct items from the shelves and put them in a tote, while the “packers” prepare the product for shipment (Adler-Bell, 2019). These conditions under the capitalist’s view are necessary to ensure customers are satisfied with their product.