The 1X Neo Robot - A Game Changer for Aging In Place or a Dangerous Dependency?

1X Technologies just opened pre-orders for NEO, a humanoid robot designed for home use that can perform household tasks, provide companionship, and learn from its environment. For those of us working in the aging sector, the implications are immediately apparent: this could fundamentally change what's possible for older adults who want to remain in their homes as they age.

Imagine a robot that ensures medications are taken on time, assists with mobility throughout the house, calls for help in emergencies, handles household chores like changing lightbulbs or lifting heavy items, and helps prepare nutritious meals. Beyond the practical support, it could even serve as a companion by engaging in conversations about topics that interest someone, providing cognitive stimulation, and offering consistent and calming presence.

The promise is compelling: people could age in their homes far longer than currently possible, maintaining independence and comfort in familiar surroundings rather than moving to assisted living facilities or relying entirely on family caregivers or home health aides.

But as excited as I am about this potential, I'm equally concerned about risks we need to address before we welcome robots into the homes of some of our most vulnerable population and believe we need to have a good handle on these things before we all just dive in.

The Accessibility Divide

Let's start with the most obvious barrier: NEO is priced at $20,000 for the base model or a $499 monthly subscription. For many older adults living on fixed incomes, this is simply not feasible. While the technology could theoretically help anyone age in place, in reality it will only be available to those who can afford it.

This creates a troubling two-tier system where wealthy people get access to cutting-edge support to remain independent at home, while those with fewer resources face the same limited options they've always had. If we're not careful, this technology could actually exacerbate existing inequalities in aging rather than solve them.

When Technology Fails

But here's where I see are some significant risks. We've all experienced technology issues in our lives but in this case, what happens when an older adult becomes dependent on their robot for medication management, mobility assistance, and meal preparation. Then the robot malfunctions. What happens then?

Who comes to fix it? How quickly? What's the backup plan when the person has structured their entire daily routine around this assistance? Unlike a human caregiver who can adapt and problem-solve, a broken robot is just an expensive piece of metal taking up space while someone goes without essential support.

We're talking about integrating critical infrastructure into people's lives with seemingly little discussion about redundancy, repair networks, or contingency planning. The more essential these robots become to daily functioning, the more catastrophic a breakdown becomes.

The Decline That Comes From Convenience

Here's a third concern. One of the fundamental principles of healthy aging is "use it or lose it." Physical movement, mental engagement, problem-solving, and social interaction aren't just nice-to-haves, they are essential for maintaining cognitive and physical function as we age.

My concern is that a robot that does everything for you could accelerate the very decline it's meant to prevent. If the robot lifts everything heavy, handles all the household tasks, solves problems for you, and provides all the conversation you need, what motivation is there to stay physically active, mentally engaged, or socially connected?

There's a delicate balance between helpful assistance and dependency that undermines someone's remaining capabilities. We see this already with well-meaning family members who do too much for aging parents. A robot that's always available to do tasks could eliminate the necessary friction that keeps people moving and thinking.

The Human Connection Crisis

Related to this is perhaps one of my deepest concerns: will robot companionship replace human connection? If an older adult has a robot that chats with them, plays games, and provides consistent company, will family and friends visit less as they don't think there is as much a need anymore? Will the person themselves reach out less to their community if they have all their companionship at home?

Human connection isn't just about having someone to talk to, it's about reciprocal relationships, emotional depth, shared history, and the sense of mattering to other people. A robot, no matter how sophisticated its conversation, cannot replicate that. And if it becomes an acceptable substitute, we risk creating profound isolation masked as companionship.

The robot shouldn't be a replacement for human caregivers, family visits, or community engagement. But I fear that's exactly how it might be used.

The Security Nightmare

Now let's talk about the elephant in the room: privacy and security. NEO is equipped with cameras, microphones, and sensors that allow it to navigate and interact with its environment. It's essentially a mobile surveillance system with physical capabilities, living in your home, observing everything you do.

But what if it gets hacked?

This isn't hypothetical fearmongering - connected devices get compromised regularly. But the implications of a hacked home robot are uniquely disturbing:

• Someone could access the cameras and microphones, watching and listening to your most private moments

• They could learn your daily routines, knowing exactly when you're most vulnerable

• They could observe where you keep valuables, medications, or financial information

• Most alarmingly, they could potentially control the robot itself

Imagine a bad actor taking control of a robot in a vulnerable older adult's home. They could manipulate, threaten, or exploit the person. They could use the robot to physically intimidate or even harm someone. The potential for elder abuse through compromised home robots is genuinely frightening.

And we haven't even addressed who owns the data these robots collect, who has access to it, or how it might be used or sold.

The AI Conversation Problem

Finally, there's the question of AI-generated conversation and decision support. While having something to talk to sounds beneficial, AI can provide misinformation which can be particularly dangerous when it comes to health advice, medication management, or emergency situations.

There's also the cognitive concern: if the robot thinks for you, answers all your questions, and makes decisions on your behalf, are you exercising the critical thinking skills that help maintain cognitive function? Or are you gradually outsourcing your mental processes to a machine?

Even more troubling: AI could potentially be programmed to influence decisions, manipulate choices, or push certain products or services. An older adult who's isolated and dependent on their robot companion might be particularly vulnerable to this kind of influence.

Moving Forward Thoughtfully

Believe me, I am all for technology developments and the benefits it can offer so please don't confuse my concerns with a desire to reject this technology outright. The potential benefits for aging in place are real and significant. But I do believe that we need to move forward with our eyes open to the risks.

Before these robots become widespread in the homes of older adults, I think we need to have:

• Robust cybersecurity standards and regular security audits

• Clear regulations about data ownership and privacy

• Accessible pricing models or subsidies so this isn't just for the wealthy

• Training for users and their families about appropriate use and limitations

• Backup systems and rapid-response repair networks

• Guidelines that emphasize robots as supplements to human care, not replacements

• Research on the long-term physical and cognitive effects of robot assistance

The 1X NEO robot represents an impressive technological achievement with genuine potential to help people age in place with greater independence and safety.

But technology is never neutral. How we implement it, who has access to it, and what safeguards we put in place will determine whether it becomes a tool for dignified aging or another way that vulnerable people get left behind - or even the ultimate worse case - exploited or harmed.

We owe it to us all and our future as humans to get this right.

Here's more details on Neo: