Show HN: Open-source real-time talk-to-AI wearable device for few $ (github.com)
1. In the US, about 1/5 children are hospitalized each year that don’t have a caregiver. Caregiver such as play therapists and parents’ stress can also affect children's emotions.
2. Not everyone is good at making friends and not everyone has a BFF to talk to. Imagine you're having a hard time in life or at work, and you can't tell your parents or friends.
So, we built an open-source project Starmoon and are using affordable hardware components to bring AI characters to real-word objects like toys and plushies to help people emotional growth.
We believe this is a complement tool and it is not intended to replace anyone. Please leave any opinion.
125 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 190 ms ] threadFor example, I spent 20 minutes the other day talking through some software architecture decisions for a solo project. That was incredible. No way I would have typed out my thoughts as smoothly.
[1] https://lmstudio.ai/
llama.cpp - https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/blob/master/examples/...
or
mistral.rs - https://github.com/EricLBuehler/mistral.rs/blob/master/docs/...
lmstudio and ollama use llama.cpp underneath. cut the middle man
Since you can use docker for our backend, you can self-host your own service with our hardware. You can use our subscription only if you want us to handle the STT/TTS/LLM costs
Other problems are persistence. Have you looked at how hard it is to keep an app running in the background on an iPhone? on a Samsung phone? For an app that needs to be always-on, it's a non-starter unless you're Apple or Google respectively.
The platforms (ios, Android, etc.) are very limiting. It is hard to have something always on and listening. Especially apple is aggressive with apps running in the background.
You need constant permissioning and special privileges. The exposed APIs themselves are not enough to build deep and stable integrations to the level of Siri/Google Assistant.
I don't know about this project, but generally when a voice assistant is "always listening" they mean it's sitting in a low power state listening for a very specific trigger like "Hey Siri" or "OK Google" and literally nothing else. As much as they would probably like to have it really listening all the time, the technology to have a portable device run actual speech recognition and parsing at all times with useful battery life doesn't really exist yet.
I'm not sure what that "etc" is supposed to mean, but GNU/Linux phones run desktop OS and impose no artificial limits on you.
Because people have agency and hobbies, and they're free to decide what to spend their money and time on.
"Because people have agency and hobbies"
More attention next time.
``` /* * @file streams-i2s-webserver_wav.ino * * This sketch reads sound data from I2S. The result is provided as WAV stream which can be listened to in a Web Browser * * @author Phil Schatzmann * @copyright GPLv3 /
#include <WiFi.h> #include "AudioTools.h"
const char ssid = "<stavros_ssid>"; const char *password = "stavros_pw"; AudioWAVServer server(ssid, password);
I2SStream i2sStream; ConverterFillLeftAndRight<int16_t> filler(LeftIsEmpty); // fill both channels - or change to RightIsEmpty
void setup() { Serial.begin(115200); AudioLogger::instance().begin(Serial, AudioLogger::Info);
}// Arduino loop void loop() { // Handle new connections server.copy(); }
```
This code just listens to audio you record on a microphone (INMP441 MEMS microphone used here) and streams it to an endpoint of the microcontroller's IP address. If you would like more help on this give me a shout anytime. my email: akash at starmoon dot app
A lot of the subscription based pull ins could be replaced by networking into a machine running whisper/ollama etc anyway.
Keep up the great work I say :)
> A lot of the subscription based pull ins could be replaced by networking into a machine running whisper/ollama etc anyway.
could you clarify this point? I think local LLMs are great for us to reduce cost and improve privacy concerns. For conversational AI however, is there a better way to run STT and TTS models?
Trust me, large language models are not anywhere close to being able to substitute as an effective parent, therapist, or caregiver. In fact, I'd wager any attempts to do so would have mostly _negative_ effects.
I would implore you to reconsider this as a legitimate use case for your open device.
> We believe this is a complement tool and it is not intended to replace anyone.
Well which is it? Both issues you list heavily imply that your tool will serve as a de facto replacement. But then you finish by saying you don't intend to do that. So what aspects of the problems you listed will be solved as a simple "complement tool"?
I mean doctors and play therapists still have to do their job, We have interviewed some doctors who feel particularly frustrated about how to comfort children before tests or surgeries. They hope for a tool can help building comfort for kids -> which means time is faster to run tests.
I can only urge you to reconsider how honest, realistic, and credible those promises you make can possibly be. After all, you are playing with the lives and wellbeing of humans here. Every drug and therapeutic device has to go through rigorous vetting and testing before being cleared for human treatment. Ever heard of clinical trials? And you seriously think you can skip that with “we asked some pediatricians”? Please, think again. And ask someone with more domain knowledge than vague hopes in a technology they don't understand.
Junru and I will discuss the approach with pediatric care based on this. And I agree having domain expertise/advisors to guide us in the right direction is important
You're asking us to trust you, but why should we trust you in this matter? Regardless of if I think ChatGPT is any good at those things, you'd need some supporting evidence for that one way or another before continuing.
I won't be surprised if in a couple more years this kind if thing is the norm. I don't think there's anything inherently different from a person that listens to you.
Humanoid robots are improving, so I won't say "never", but I will say "not yet". Not in isolation at least.
* and likely the closest we ever will, because it was disturbing enough to a big influence on animal welfare movement
Why is that "not anywhere close to being able to substitute as an effective parent, therapist, or caregiver."?
Maybe I've had a bad parents/therapists/caregivers all my life, but it seems like an entirely reasonable response. If there's a more specific scenario you'd like me to pose and show me that it's advice is no good, I'm happy to ask it.
I'm not trying to convince you that it's, right now, a replacement for a human parent/therapist/caregiver. it's the "not anywhere close" part that I'm responding to. It's closer than talking with a speak and spell, or a See'n'say, for instance, but also ahead of static worksheets that you can't have a conversation with. I have no idea if this is good for society, and I have no idea where this technology will take us.
I want to know the limitations of this technology, and I'm willing to be convinced that, hey, maybe what some of it's saying isn't helpful as a therapist, because that's interesting. The number of R's in strawberry, for instance has a specific technical reason it's bad at, because of how tokenization works. If, after being fed every psychology textbook, the advice it gives would be egregiously or subtly bad/wrong/harmful, or biased towards, say, giving a Freudian analysis when the industry's moved way past that, I'd like to know and hear about it, so I better know when not to trust its advice and be able to warn others.
My instincts tell me that humans are pretty good at detecting this difference. And when they aren't - they still won't like being lied to or tricked about it. You can see it already - generative art, or music for instance is (in some cases) objectively more impressive than art created by humans all else constant. You might trick a contest into giving you an award but the moment people find out it's generated, they almost immediately react angrily and no longer express interest in the result.
That's because they used to attribute the result to a person and now they know it's not a person. The psychology there probably isn't even fully fleshed out, but i feel it instinctively, as I said before. And I suspect others do as well based on the reactions here.
Sorry for assuming bad faith. i've met a lot of persons here who really do think LLM's in their current form are a kind of sentience. Blake Lemoigne (sp?) is a good example of that kind of naïveté.
I too have a human therapist, doctors, etc. And I too find myself chatting with ChatGPT, etc. about personal issues and in certain cases benefit tremendously from it. In particular, whenever it is something I would normally feel embarassed to say to another actual human. Since I am very confident ChatGPT doesn't have feelings or even an internal monologue with which it could "judge" me - I have no issue telling it such things. The benefit here is from the questions I can have answered that would otherwise go unanswered. I think this makes for a potential assistive technology as you implied earlier (better than a worksheet).
But for precisely that same reason, it will never work (in its current form) as a complete substitute for a human. And attempts to do so may in fact be actively harmful (as I originally suggested). Again, I'll just say that I don't think there's yet enough research on this but that "I know it when I see it". Any sufficiently serious topic I discuss with ChatGPT ultimately winds up with me drained because I feel as though I'm talking to a wall and not actually being acknowledged by anyone with agency who matters to me.
I will definitely admit that this is a highly opinionated take and is rooted in a lot of my personal feelings on the matter. As such, I can't really say that I've definitively proven that my point is the correct point. But, I hope you at least get the gist of what I am saying.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure what your point actually is. Is ChatGPT in it's current form, a replacement for human contact? absolutely not. do people have strong emotions around something using a GPU and a bunch of math and was generated instead of being organically hand crafted by a human being, and having it fall into the uncanny valley? totally. is this box of matrices and dot products outputting something I personally find useful, despite shortcomings? yeah.
I agree that there's totally this brick wall feeling when ChatGPT spins itself in circles because it ran out the context window or whatever.
at the end of the day, I think the yacht rock cover of "closer" is fun, even though it's AI generated. however that makes you feel about my opinions.
https://youtu.be/ejubTfUhK9c
It won't literally do that, the labs are all careful about the obvious stuff.
But consider that Google Gemini's bad instructions almost gave someone botulism*, there's a high chance of something like that in almost every field. I couldn't tell you what that would mean in therapy for the same reason I wouldn't have known Gemini's recipe would lead to culturing botulism.
These are certainly more capable than anything before them, but the Peter Principle still applies, we should treat them as no more than interns for now. That may be OK, may even be an improvement on not having them, but it's easy to misjudge them.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40724283
I never forget one of his remarks: There can be only one thing that is worse than someone not having a mother - that he has one.
So maybe a chatty LLM is not the worse thing that can happen with someone.
> There can be only one thing that is worse than someone not having a mother - that he has one.
However, this is not accurate.
OP, I would implore you to not listen to any of this "advice" at all and just keep on building really nice things.
I can already think of a dozen valuable applications of it in a therapheutic context.
Ignore those who don't "do".
I'm actually pretty ok with ignoring those who don't "think" before they "do", not that the OP is one of those people, but "doing" as a mark of virtue seems fairly likely destructive
The world is material, not imaginary.
"Charging head-first", even in the wrong direction, is the only thing worth doing.
Can you share anything you've done so that we can all see it?
I can say
- I have a wonder family that loves me (and vice versa)
- I have a place to live and can pay the bills
- The people I work with are glad I'm working with them (and vice versa)
- I've been a software developer for decades and I get to solve new and (what I find) interesting problems on a fairly regular basis. Most of that problem solving involves thinking; with a minor bit of doing at the end.
So overall, I'm pretty happy with where my life philosophy has taken me.
You're blessed.
Great answer overall, but this bit specifically is so crucial to maintaining interest long-term. Mechanistic programming needs to be done sometimes, and it's every junior's first impulse when presented with what they think has an obvious solution (see the problem -> start coding, or "why don't we just refactor this? I'll just put in a ton of extra unpaid hours and make everything better"), but that wears thin very quickly to the point of risking burnout.
You need to develop perspective on why you do something and what impact it may or may not have on small or large scales, and put yourself in positions where the majority of your labor goes to understanding how to apply your skills or resources in a sufficient way, given the constraints in front of you and down the line; this isn't just to advance your measurable skills or your resume, but to maintain your interest in what can quickly become incredibly dull and soul-sucking.
It does kinda send an interesting message to a child, doesn't it? "You're not worth the time of anybody human, so here's a machine instead."
And that's before the chat even starts (and eventually goes off the rails).
Again, not shitting on the people creating this and this is the forum for it, but I feel all of this is just such a wrong direction for people and humanity in general.
But I agree with your thought, I think this is a big fear with google home and alexa as well. ie. Are home automation tools always listening to our conversations. IIRC pre-wake word detection, none of the audio recorded is used to market products to you.
Would you like to try building it with our devkit? We will prioritize raspberry pi firmware support if there is enough demand around this.
> With a platform that supports real-time conversations safe for all ages...Our AI platform can analyse human-speech and emotion, and respond with empathy, offering supportive conversations and personalized learning assistance.
These claims are certainly false. It is not acceptable for AI hucksters to lie about their product in order to make a quick buck, regardless of how many nice words they say about emotional growth.
Do you have a single psychologist on your staff that signed off on any of this? Telling lies about commercial products will get you in trouble with regulators, and it truly seems like you deserve to get in trouble.
To me, it looks like you have some experience with the topic and believe that it is very hard to build something like the device in question, but which properties of the solution make you so certain?
I don't take advertising at face value, even if that advertising might appeal to sci-fi sensibilities. Your question has an air of "well you can't PROVE the flying spaghetti monster is false."
However, I agree with you that this is very thin ice. Given the selection of books used as decoration in the video, the authors seem to have more of a business background [2] than one of psychology.
I don't like calling someone a liar when no evidence is present (either way). I would rather say: 'Bold claims, can you prove it?'
[1]: https://github.com/StarmoonAI/Starmoon/blob/main/.env.exampl...
[2]: https://youtu.be/59rwFuCMviE?t=69
Ours are indeed bold claims and we have updated some copies on the website to update our core value prop
> Do you have a single psychologist on your staff that signed off on any of this?
We've been talking to pediatricians at portland hospital and cromwell hospital in london to support the "safe for all ages" claim but I agree that we want to back all our claims with data
> It is not acceptable for AI hucksters to lie about their product in order to make a quick buck
You created a fake/throwaway just to make posts with this kind of cheap insults?
The bear's movement isn't great, and its voice sounds robotic. Projects like this make me think that Teddy either could be built with today's tech, or is very close to being buildable.
The interesting thing to do with this project would be to fork it and run it with open inference models.
…buuuuuut, this is one of those “modern” web apps that has a dozen third party api dependencies to worry about, built on non-self-hostable platform (superbase) so even if you wanted to, it’s probably actually impossible to run in an isolated sandbox you completely control.
/shrug
[0]: https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/news/medical-cha...
[1]: https://ainiro.io/blog/googles-ai-encouraging-people-to-comm...
[2]: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/03/31/man-ends-his-life-a...