In recent months, we’ve seen the introduction of many new age AI wearable devices. These devices were meant to propel humanity into a future where AI wearables became a norm, potentially eclipsing the era of smartphones.
When Rabbit Inc. and Humane launched the Rabbit R1 and AI Pin, it awed the internet. As usual, social media discussions revolved around AI wearables killing smartphones.
However, reality struck pretty soon this time. Marques Brownlee, probably the most popular tech reviewer in the world, called Rabbit RI “barely reviewable”.
Moreover, some developers also decided to look closely and found that Rabbit R1 is just an application that can run on any smartphone.
According to Android Authority, Rabbit R1, in fact, runs Android under the hood and they even managed to install it on a Pixel 6a.
Reviewers were not kind to Humane’s Ai Pin either. Founded by former Apple employees, the company positioned its gadget as something that will help humanity take the first step in the post-smartphone world.
But it was merely seen as a smartphone without a screen. Everything that Ai Pin could do could be done through the smartphone itself. To make matters worse, recent reports suggest the founders are seeking potential buyers for the company.
Hype vs Reality
If you thought these gadgets would replace smartphones anytime soon, you fell for the AI hype. When ChatGPT arrived in November 2022, it was meant to change search engines forever, and many labelled it as the Google Killer.
However, nearly a year and a half later, Google search remains the most dominant and widely used search engine in the world. While OpenAI did rock Google’s boat to some extent, the latter brought the same technology that powers ChatGPT to Search.
Microsoft, which has invested over $10 billion in OpenAI, was also quick to bring LLMs to its own search engine, Bing. However, did it manage to gain significant market share from Google in the search space? No.
Similarly, it’s unlikely that AI wearables will also replace smartphones anytime soon. Replacing smartphones would need a cultural change. Google today has become a household name, similarly, for many of us, it’s hard to imagine a day without a smartphone.
Modern humans have become accustomed to smartphones, relying on them for a myriad of things in their day-to-day lives.
Besides regular functions like calling, using a camera, sending emails, texting, and e-shopping, executives can use smartphones to conduct meetings on the go, and it also allows developers to write code.
Above all, smartphones today offer convenience. You can order medicines, watch a new episode of your favourite series on Netflix, and email your boss to say, ‘You are sick.’
Additionally, it provides an integrated ecosystem, enhanced interface, security, and versatility. Unless AI wearable devices can outperform these features significantly and offer additional benefits, convincing users to make the transition will be challenging for these companies.
Smartphones will Make AI Consumable
The reality is AI will come to smartphones first and phones will make AI accessible to consumers. On an average, a billion smartphones are sold every year.
Android phone companies such as Google, Samsung, Vivo, among others are already shipping AI features with their high-end smartphones.
While LLMs mostly run on the cloud, phone makers are building smaller versions which can run locally on the phone. For example, Google’s Gemini Nano runs locally on its flagship smartphone, Pixel 8.
By next year, we could expect these brands to introduce more AI features and even on their mid-range smartphones.
Recently, at Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) 2024, Apple announced Apple Intelligence, showing how AI can run locally on the phone. Running small language models locally on most devices remains a possibility by next year.
According to Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon, AI could even create a new upgrade cycle for phones.
AI Wearables will Have their Day, Someday
Having said that, it would not be right to write off these devices completely. First of all, the founders need a big shoutout for taking up something so bold.
It’s also important to remember that AI wearables are relatively new compared to smartphones. What we have today are the first iterations.
In the future, we could have better AI wearable devices or better versions of the existing devices.
Moreover, not all AI wearables have failed to impress critics and consumers. For instance, Meta’s Ray Ban AI glasses received positive reviews from multiple sources. Gadget360 called it “versatile and practical”.
Interestingly, AI glasses are not new. Google launched its glasses in 2014. Meta, too, has been working on its glasses for a few years.
Meta did not project its glasses as a replacement for smartphones but rather as an advanced AI-powered accessory. Here, it’s important to note that Meta’s chief AI scientist, Yann LeCun, did say AI wearables could replace smartphones in the next 10-15 years.
Is the AI Hype Real?
This is not the first time someone in the AI space has made a forward-looking statement. Overtime, we have seen many prominent figures in the space make such claims, be it about AI wearables, AI or even artificial general intelligence (AGI).
Tesla chief Elon Musk has been promising Level 5 autonomous vehicles for many years. He even claimed AI will be smarter than every human by next year.
Interestingly, most of the bold claims are made by companies or founders who are selling AI. Over time, many of these claims have also been put into question.
For instance, OpenAI, when it released GPT-4, did not reveal any details about its AI model, but did claim that the model scored 90th percentile in the Uniform Bar Exam.
However, a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology report questions OpenAI’s claims, calling it misleading.
Last year, Google DeepMind claimed its AI tool GNoME found 2.2 million new crystals, including 380,000 stable materials that could power future technologies.
Yet, in a perspective paper featured in Chemical Materials, researchers from the University of California analysed a random subset of the 380,000 structures. They contended that the substances identified are, in fact, crystalline inorganic compounds and should be classified as such, rather than being broadly termed ‘materials’.
What these developments tell us is that oftentimes more is promised than what the technology can do. What is being promised now is based solely on the surface capabilities of future iterations of these technologies.
We are witnessing the same with AI wearables. MKBHD rightly pointed out on X saying, “This is the pinnacle of a trend that’s been annoying for years: Delivering barely finished products to win a ‘race’ and then continuing to build them after charging full price. Games, phones, cars, now AI in a box.”
