@strypey i think there are a lot of people who will back away quickly at the idea of a "smart" anything, let alone a "conversational operator". do i need a mode of transport that is programmed to pretend to be sapient, but definitely is not? i don't think i do.
Discussion
Loading...
Reading more about the Trinity, I really like the concept.
"Most vehicles are designed from the mechanical platform outward – chassis, engine or battery, then software added on top.
Trinity started from a different question: What if the agent – a smart, conversational operator that understands your goals – was the centre of the whole experience?"
#WilliamAdams, 2026
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/01/14/will-i-am-micromobility-single-person-trinity-vehicle/
What could a software freedom/ open hardware version of Trinity be like? Think PineCar or Framework EV
@strypey BTW, what Trinity does is something Citroen has done too, they call it CARA. Also, isn't the way Trinity is designed called a Software Defined Vehicle? Toyota set up a subsidiary, Woven, to do that (but grander, including a 7-hectare demo city to evolve cities with it).
To be clear, what I like about the Trinity design concept is they designed from UX to hardware, rather than vice-versa. So the hardware is engineered to support human-centric design goals, including being as upgradable as possible. The exact opposite of a hypothetical iCar, which would work beautifully for a couple of years, then rapidly enshittify to push the owner into buying the next version.
(1/2)
"The biggest improvements over time would come from agent and workflow upgrades rather than changes to the hardware, Adams said.
'That's desirable because the car can keep getting smarter and more personally useful – new tools, new automations, deeper integration into your life – while still preserving the joy of actually driving', he said."
https://www.dezeen.com/2026/01/14/will-i-am-micromobility-single-person-trinity-vehicle/
Make sure the owner is the admin, in control of what software runs on the hardware, and you've got a libre EV.
(2/2)
> find parking near this meeting, text them my ETA and log the mileage for expenses".
What could possibly go wrong?
@strypey i think there are a lot of people who will back away quickly at the idea of a "smart" anything, let alone a "conversational operator". do i need a mode of transport that is programmed to pretend to be sapient, but definitely is not? i don't think i do.
(1/2)
@fishidwardrobe
> there are a lot of people who will back away quickly at the idea of a "smart" anything, let alone a "conversational operator"
Fair enough. But I think we need to be careful not to let the #MOLE Training bubble put us off all forms of automation and augmentation. Keep in mind the centaur vs. reverse centaur framework I referenced in the first post.
(2/2)
In the context of the article "conversational operator" basically refers to a built-in, WiFi connected computer, with a speech-to-text and text-to-speech interface so you can use it safely while driving. It's specifically not in control of any aspect of driving the vehicle. It's just a digital assistant connected to the vehicle's sensors. This sounds useful to me.
Obviously in an Open Trinity, all software would be local-first, no Trained MOLE talking from "the cloud".