Mixed Reviews for Humane AI Pin and Rabbit R1: New AI Gadgets Struggle with Performance and Functionality

Washington, DC, District of Columbia United States of America
AI gadgets like the Humane AI Pin and Rabbit R1 have received mixed reviews due to performance and functionality issues.
Both devices represent the growing trend of AI integration in consumer electronics.
The Humane AI Pin has poor battery life, heat issues, an ineffective outdoor projector-based UI, and a high price tag.
The Rabbit R1 has frequent feature failures, an incomplete featureset, and struggled with object identification.
Mixed Reviews for Humane AI Pin and Rabbit R1: New AI Gadgets Struggle with Performance and Functionality

Artificial Intelligence (AI) gadgets have been making headlines lately, with companies like Google, Samsung, Meta, and Microsoft showcasing new devices that integrate AI technology. Among these is the Rabbit R1 and Humane AI Pin. However, both devices received mixed reviews due to various issues.

The Humane AI Pin was criticized for its poor battery life, heat issues, and a projector-based UI that is ineffective outdoors. It also comes with a hefty price tag of $700 plus a monthly fee. On the other hand, the Rabbit R1 was panned for being underbaked with frequent feature failures and an incomplete featureset. Despite its lower cost of $200 without a subscription fee, it failed to impress reviewers.

The Humane AI Pin is a voice-first gadget that uses an AI technology called 'Large Action Model' to fulfill demands. Users can speak commands to the device and it will respond accordingly. One user, Daniel Ko, bought the Humane AI Pin for its potential and cool appearance despite its shortcomings.

The Rabbit R1 is a compact orange gadget with a scroll wheel and voice controls. It uses an AI technology that can identify objects but struggled to correctly identify simple items like Doritos as tacos or red dog toys as stress balls, tomatoes, or red bell peppers. The device also had issues with playing songs without responding and couldn't give accurate weather information until a software update was installed.

Despite these issues, both devices represent the growing trend of AI integration in consumer electronics. It remains to be seen how well these gadgets will fare in the market and whether they can truly replace smartphones or serve as useful companions.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

90%

Doubts
  • Are there any non-peer reviewed studies or unverified claims in the article?

Sources

93%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Weekend poll: Have you considered buying an AI gadget yet?

Android Police News Site Will Sattelberg Sunday, 05 May 2024 18:23
  • Unique Points
    • Humane AI Pin received mixed reviews due to poor battery life, heat issues, and a projector-based UI that is ineffective outdoors
    • Humane AI Pin costs $700 plus a monthly fee
    • Rabbit R1 also received negative reviews for being underbaked with frequent feature failures and an incomplete featureset
    • Rabbit R1 costs $200 without a subscription fee
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (80%)
    The author expresses his personal opinions and experiences with the Humane AI Pin and Rabbit R1 devices, but does not provide any factual deception. He shares criticisms of the products based on reviews from other sources and his own expectations. However, he does use emotional manipulation by describing the devices as 'toy-like' and 'fresh' before sharing their shortcomings.
    • And considering the work being done to get the core OS up and running on Android, it might not be long until you can demo the toolset for yourself.
    • Somehow, the cheaper Rabbit R1 fared worse. Despite costing just $200 – and without any subscription fee – the R1 is even more underbaked than its wearable counterpart.
    • I love gadgets, and I think there’s a good chance anyone reading this loves gadgets too.
    • However, if you’ve been under a rock, here’s the short version. The Humane AI Pin wowed some reviewers with its overall design philosophy, but fell short of its ‘replace your phone’ goals thanks to poor battery life, heat issues, and a projector-based UI that might as well not exist once you walk outside.
    • From the projector built into Humane’s gadget to the Teenage Engineering-sourced design of the Rabbit that calls back to the Playdate, there’s a sense of freshness and fun radiating off both products.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes several appeals to emotion and uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Humane AI Pin and Rabbit R1 devices. He also makes a hasty generalization about the tech press's reception of these products without providing any specific examples or evidence.
    • >from the projector built into Humane’s gadget to the Teenage Engineering-sourced design of the Rabbit that calls back to the Playdate, there’s a sense of freshness and fun radiating off both products.<
    • However, if you’ve been under a rock, here’s the short version. The Humane AI Pin wowed some reviewers with its overall design philosophy, but fell short of its ‘replace your phone’ goals thanks to poor battery life, heat issues, and a projector-based UI that might as well not exist once you walk outside.<
    • Even at $200, something as relatively cheap as the Rabbit just isn’t worth what Joe Maring at Digital Trends called ‘the worst gadget [he’s] ever reviewed.’
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

80%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Rabbit R1 review: nothing to see here

The Verge David Pierce Thursday, 02 May 2024 15:30
  • Unique Points
    • The Rabbit R1 is a $199 orange rectangle gadget.
    • The Rabbit R1 misidentified a Dorito as a taco.
    • The Rabbit R1 misidentified a red dog toy as a stress ball, then as a tomato, then as a red bell pepper.
    • The Rabbit R1 played songs without responding and kept playing even when the user tried to pause or turn down the volume.
    • The Rabbit R1 couldn’t tell the time or weather accurately until a software update was installed.
    • The Rabbit R1 is now able to give weather information that is approximately 15 miles away from the actual location.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The author expresses frustration and disappointment with the Rabbit R1 device's performance, implying that it fails to meet its advertised capabilities. This is not deception on its own as the author is sharing their personal experience. However, there are instances of selective reporting and emotional manipulation in the article. The author focuses on negative experiences with the device while omitting any positive ones, creating a skewed perception for readers.
    • I could not convince this AI-powered gadget...that I was holding a chip.
    • For a while, the R1 couldn’t even tell the time or the weather.
    • It misidentified a red dog toy as a stress ball, then as a tomato, then as a red bell pepper that it assured me is totally safe to eat.
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Rabbit R1 as 'feeling broken' and 'broken device' multiple times. He also makes a dichotomous depiction by stating that the Rabbit R1 is supposed to be a super-clever, ultra-helpful AI assistant but instead feels like it bears no resemblance to the one promised.
    • “You’re holding a taco.” The Rabbit R1 told me that the other day. But it was a Dorito.
    • “For a while, the R1 couldn’t even tell the time or the weather.”
    • “After reviewing the Humane AI Pin and finding it woefully unable to execute its ambition, I was excited about the R1. It’s cheaper, more whimsical, and less ambitious.”
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

98%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The Morning After: The verdict on the Rabbit R1

Engadget Mat Smith Monday, 06 May 2024 16:07
  • Unique Points
    • New research conducted by the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggests current carbon removal plans will not be enough to comply with Paris treaty goals to limit global warming to 1.5C.
    • Google has updated its Inappropriate Content Policy to expressly prohibit advertisers from promoting websites and services that generate deepfake pornography.
    • Nintendo sent a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notice for over 8,000 GitHub repositories hosting code from the Yuzu Switch emulator.
    • Nintendo asserts the Yuzu source code ‘illegally circumvents Nintendo’s technological protection measures and runs illegal copies of Switch games.’
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The author makes a comparison between the Rabbit R1 and a phone, implying that if the phone can do the same tasks, then there is no need for the Rabbit R1. This is an example of an Appeal to Irrelevance fallacy as it does not address the merits of the Rabbit R1 itself but rather compares it to something else. The author also expresses his personal opinion about not being into the Rabbit R1, which is irrelevant to the evaluation of any potential logical fallacies in the article.
    • If your phone can do all these tasks just as well (or better, in most cases), what’s the point, Rabbit?
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

76%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The Rabbit r1 shipped half-baked, but that's kind of the point

TechCrunch Devin Coldewey Sunday, 05 May 2024 12:05
  • Unique Points
    • The rabbit r1 was shipped earlier than expected.
    • Rabbit aims to build an all-purpose AI assistant that competitors have been struggling with for years.
  • Accuracy
    • It currently has limited app integrations: Uber, DoorDash, Spotify, and Midjourney.
    • The device is intended to offload common tasks and services to a simpler device.
  • Deception (30%)
    The author expresses his personal opinions and experiences with the Rabbit r1 device, which can be considered subjective and not factual. He also makes statements that are selectively reporting information by only mentioning the limitations of the device without acknowledging its potential benefits or features. For example, he mentions that there are only four app integrations available but fails to mention that more may be added in the future.
    • I can’t in good conscience advise anyone to buy one now. I mean, for me, it does almost nothing.
    • Three settings.
    • The simple truth is I like the idea of the rabbit r1, and I’m OK with waiting until that idea has some time to mature.
    • As to whether it could just be an app, and for people hung up on the idea that it runs on Android or uses some established APIs – maybe you missed the whole pitch, which is that we already have way too many apps and the point is to offload a lot of common tasks and services to a simpler, less distraction-inducing device.
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author makes an appeal to audience by expressing his personal opinion that the rabbit r1's limited features and early stage are something to be 'rallying behind' rather than criticizing. He also uses inflammatory rhetoric when he states that 'companies used to make all kinds of weird stuff. Tech is so boring now.' This implies a negative evaluation of current technology, which is not an objective statement and can be considered an appeal to emotion.
    • ]I'm still the guy holding one and writing for a big tech publication, so let's take this seriously.[
    • Tech is so boring now.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

96%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

AI gadgets are here, but are they any good?

ABC NEWS SITE NAMES Name: ABC News Site Names URL: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-officially-blames-iran_106834435 ABC News Monday, 06 May 2024 16:09
  • Unique Points
    • Rabbit R1 is a new AI device with a compact size and shape of a packet of sticky notes, released in 2024.
    • Users can speak commands to the R1 and it uses an AI technology called ‘Large Action Model’ to fulfill demands.
    • Daniel Ko, a fractional CFO for AI startups, bought the R1 due to its potential and cool appearance.
  • Accuracy
    • Rabbit R1 costs $200 without a subscription fee.
    • The Rabbit R1 misidentified a Dorito as a taco.
    • The Rabbit R1 is now able to give weather information that is approximately 15 miles away from the actual location.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when Rabbit CEO Jesse Lyu states 'Our mission is to create the simplest computer – something so intuitive that you don’t need to learn how to use it.' This statement implies that the simplicity and ease of use of the Rabbit R1 is a desirable quality, but it does not provide any evidence or reasoning as to why this is true. The article also contains an informal fallacy in the form of a hasty generalization when Danny Cole states 'I think in this moment I’m just curious.' This statement suggests that the Rabbit R1 has potential based on his personal curiosity, but it does not provide any evidence or reasoning as to why this is true for everyone.
    • ]Our mission is to create the simplest computer – something so intuitive that you don’t need to learn how to use it[
    • I think in this moment I’m just curious
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication