Features

London — A sugar tax could be introduced in English hospitals in a move to tackle obesity that the National Health Service (NHS) said Monday could raise up to £40 million a year.

Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, said that the levy on high-sugar drinks and snacks sold in hospital vending machines and cafés could be introduced by 2020, in an interview with The Guardian newspaper.

It is hoped the scheme would raise between £20 million ($28.5 million, 26.2 million euros) and £40 million.

“We will be consulting on introducing an NHS sugar tax on various beverages and other sugar-added foods across the NHS,” he said.

“By 2020, we’ve either got these practices out of hospitals or we’ve got the equipment of a sugar tax on the back of them,” he added.

NHS England did not say at what rate the tax would be set, but medical groups and health charities want it to be 20 per cent.

The health administrator said that bad diet had now overtaken smoking as the country’s main cause of lifestyle-linked illness.

“Smoking still kills 80,000-plus people a year, smoking is still a huge problem. But it turns out that diet has edged ahead,” he said.

“All of us working in the NHS have a responsibility not just to support those who look after patients but also to draw attention to and make the case for some of the wider changes that will actually improve the health of this country,” he added.

LOS ANGELES — While self-driving cars already are being tested on public roads, newly released safety data support the cautionary view that the technology has many kilometres to go before people can sleep at the wheel.

That doesn’t mean relief is decades away for commute-weary drivers. It’s possible, even likely, that within a few years, mainstream cars will be able to drive themselves reliably — on routes they have mastered, in weather they can handle, and on the premise that a driver will be ready to take over in moments.

Traditional automakers and technology companies such as Google are investing hundreds of millions — probably billions — of dollars in a race to market.

Google was one of seven companies required to disclose to California’s Department of Motor Vehicles the number of times a trained test driver had to seize the wheel either because of a technology failure or because a prototype car was driving unsafely.

The DMV released those reports Tuesday. The data they contain are the most detailed look yet at how safely the prototypes are performing.

Some questions and answers about what the data reveal about the state of the technology:

What became clear this week?

It became clear that even Google, which has done the most testing in California by far, is not on the cusp of perfecting a car that doesn’t need a driver. And that, for now at least, traditional automakers remain far behind.

The data on “disengagements” of the self-driving technology document the gap.

Google reported that, in 678,400km of testing since autumn 2014, its cars needed human help 341 times due to serious safety issues. The leader of its self-driving car project, Chris Urmson, said that while he considers the results encouraging, they show room for improvement. After all, by the company’s own analysis, there were 11 instances in which the car would have had an accident if its driver had not taken over.

Five other companies combined said their prototypes drove about 57,300km in the same time period — and needed human help more than 2,400 times. Those five companies were Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and parts suppliers Bosch and Delphi.

The seventh company, Tesla Motors, reported no problems — but did not report that it drove any test kilometres, either.

Wait, Teslas are perfect?

No. Just go online and you’ll find videos where the “autopilot” feature already in some Tesla sedans drove erratically enough that the driver grabbed the wheel.

The fact that Tesla reported no “disengagements” was puzzling. It could reflect a company interpretation of the reporting requirements.

Tesla isn’t talking. Asked about its problem-free report, spokeswoman Khobi Brooklyn said the company was not releasing any details. The California Department of Motor Vehicles said it was still reviewing all reports.

What do other companies have to say about the data?

Google’s report offered the most detail and explanation, by far. Other reports were not nearly as descriptive.

A spokesman for Nissan, which has said it wants to have “commercially viable autonomous drive vehicles” by 2020, said disengagements are an expected part of testing.

“The timing of Nissan’s on-road autonomous vehicle testing sessions was as planned and consistent with our autonomous vehicle development schedule,” company spokesman Steve Yaeger wrote in an e-mail.

Other companies did not respond to requests for comment.

What are the blind spots in the data?

It’s hard to draw direct comparisons between companies. The raw numbers say nothing about the conditions the cars were tested under (one rainy day can mean many more disengagements), or how hard the companies pushed them. If one company ventured to the hilly, hectic streets of San Francisco, its disengagement numbers likely would spike.

That said, Google’s numbers do compare favourably to other companies. The Silicon Valley pioneer has a significant head start — it began testing several years before other companies.

DETROIT –  Tesla’s swift rise to both create and dominate the luxury all-electric car market has stunned Detroit. 

To hold that lead to the next plateau — the self-driving, mass-market electric car widely seen as the future of the auto industry — founder Elon Musk is rapidly staffing up with the best talent he can find: computer programmers.

Rather than look to Detroit for help to build his cars, Musk’s 12 year old company is focused on Silicon Valley to recruit some 1,600 software engineers for the next stage.

They are to help develop Autopilot, Tesla’s autonomous car IT system, with capabilities like the Summon function announced this week that can allow Tesla owners to call the car from the garage to their side at will, like a pet.

In a sign of his determination to beat Detroit at its own game, last November Musk used Twitter to get his message out. 

“We are looking for hardcore software engineers. No prior experience with cars required,” he said, adding “Should mention that I will be interviewing people personally and Autopilot reports directly to me. This is a super high priority.”

Autopilot is crucial if Tesla aims to have a fully self-driving car by 2018, and increase production 10-fold to 500,000 cars a year by 2020.

Ramping up production to that level, supported by Tesla’s own battery plant under construction in Nevada, is crucial to lowering the price of its cars to a more affordable level, perhaps $35,000, for the Tesla Model 3 electric sedan planned for 2017 — around a third of today’s price tag.

Such promises have kept financiers and investors still firmly behind Tesla, even though the Palo Alto, California company has continued to lose money while the big carmakers in Detroit rack up profits on the booming US auto market.

Tough competition 

If it meets its goals, Tesla could remain a player in the industry. But it is surrounded by likewise eager competitors. All of the large Asian, European and US automakers are ramping up their work on electric, driver-less cars. 

Crossing into the field with their substantial resources and tech capabilities are Internet giants like Google, Apple, and Uber.

Also crowding into the race are Tesla-wannabes: start-ups like Chinese-backed Faraday Future, which unveiled its own Batmobile-looking electric in Las Vegas last week, Karma Automotive, Atieva and NexTex.

All of them appear to agree that the future of the industry is in electric cars that can drive themselves. And they are all battling for the best brainpower Silicon Valley has to offer.

Can Tesla still lead? 

Tesla has a march on the competition; the question is whether it can hold on.

Its Model S and new Model X SUV both have Autopilot capabilities which allow hands-off driving in some situations, and it promises incremental expansions of those capabilities.

But rivals loom in the all-electric field that will test Tesla even before autonomous driving gains traction on the roads. Audi’s Q6 e-Tron promises a 500km range without charging by 2018, 50 per cent more than Tesla’s cars currently.

Mercedes-Benz has its GLE hybrid and BMW the X5. Porsche is putting $1 billion into its “Mission E” electric car and Aston Martin has an electric sports car based on its DBX concept targeted for 2019.

“This is going to be very tough for Tesla,” said Jessica Caldwell, an industry analyst at Edmunds.com.

“Porsche is an established name. They have a lot of marketing money, they have a lot of credibility, they have a strong dealer network... You can say the same for Audi.”

At the more affordable end, General Motors is rushing to market the Chevrolet Bolt, to arrive next year as a challenger to Tesla’s Model 3. In the same price range, too, there is already BMW’s mini-electric i3.

Karl Brauer, an analyst at Kelley Blue Book, says Tesla “has the cachet, they have the prestige the competition doesn’t have. Tesla is the Apple of the automotive industry”.

Even so, he warned, to hold its lead, Tesla needs to keep an eye on the calendar as well as innovate. The new Model X was around two years late on its original timeline.

But former GM executive Bob Lutz thinks Tesla, as it bleeds money, is a poor bet to win the race for the car of the future.

“Tesla is still doomed,” he said. “Whatever uniqueness they have it’s disappearing... They have to learn how to make money like other car companies.”

STOCKHOLM – A Swedish-Ugandan study has found that mosquito nets can be used as an inexpensive alternative to costly surgical meshes in fixing common groin hernias, Stockholm’s Karolinska Institute announced Thursday.

“Commercial hernia meshes cost $100 or more, which is too much for the health services and people living in poor countries,” said Jenny Lofgren, a researcher for the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

A groin, or inguinal, hernia is a hole in the abdominal wall around the groin, through which intestines and other abdominal organs protrude. 

Without surgery, such hernias usually cause great pain and can lead to complications responsible for some 40,000 deaths a year. 

There are about 20 million operations for the hernia annually for the condition which mostly effects men. 

Researchers at the Karolinska Institute and Makerere University in the Ugandan capital Kampala conducted a randomised surgical trial comparing sterilised mosquito nets, costing as little as $1, with the regular and more expensive mesh usually used in hernia operations. 

Some 300 adult males from rural eastern Uganda were randomly assigned to receive one or the other type of surgical reinforcement by surgeons at the Kamuli Mission Hospital. The participants were then monitored for one year. 

The results showed no significant differences between the groups, and just one patient in the mosquito-net group had a recurrence. 

“These results are of great potential benefit to the many millions of people who lack access to good surgical care for their hernias,” says study project leader and surgeon Andreas Wladis, an associate professor at the Karolinska Institute’s Department of Clinical Science and Education at Stockholm South General Hospital. 

PARIS – E-cigarettes, touted as an aide for giving up tobacco, in fact lower the odds of quitting success, claimed research Thursday that was immediately criticised as flawed.

A research duo from the University of California, San Francisco reviewed the findings of 38 studies conducted across the globe into e-cigarette use, and concluded that smokers who use the devices were 28 per cent less likely to quit smoking tobacco.

Published in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine, it claimed to be the largest review of e-cigarettes value as a tool to help smokers kick the habit. 

Looking at the data, it seemed that e-cigarettes in fact hampered attempts at quitting, the team said.

“The irony is that quitting smoking is one of the main reasons both adults and kids use e-cigarettes, but the overall effect is less, not more, quitting,” co-author Stanton Glantz said in a statement issued by the university.

“While there is no question that a puff on an e-cigarette is less dangerous than a puff on a conventional cigarette, the most dangerous thing about e-cigarettes is that they keep people smoking conventional cigarettes.”

E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that heat up a liquid containing nicotine and artificial flavouring. The vapour is inhaled — “vaped” — and exhaled, much like a cigarette.

In the last few years, health experts and watchdogs have been embroiled in debate as to whether the gadgets, often not strictly regulated, are safe.

They can also be used with nicotine-free liquids, but some fear e-cigarettes could be a gateway to “real” cigarettes for teenagers.

Experts who were not involved in the new study were cautious, some scathing in their comments.

Peter Hajek, director of the Queen Mary University of London’s Tobacco Dependence Research Unit, called it “grossly misleading”.

The work, he said, looked only at current smokers who had at some point used an e-cigarette — thus excluding any former smokers who may have used exactly such a device to quit.

Ann McNeill, a King’s College London professor of tobacco addiction, said the review was “not scientific”. It included data from two studies she had co-authored, but used in ways she claimed was “either inaccurate or misleading”.

“I believe the findings should therefore be dismissed.”

Steven Bernstein of the Yale School of Medicine, in a comment carried by The Lancet, said that despite concerns over the data, the study did raise questions about the usefulness of e-cigarettes as quitting aides.

LAS VEGAS — The next frontier for the tech sector is the human brain.

A new breed of neuro-hacker is finding ways to capture and manipulate brainwaves to improve health, with potential to help the severely handicapped.

A number of the innovations were on display at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where computer scientists and biomedical experts showcased ways to tap into and use brain signals.

The “mind control” headband unveiled by start-up BrainCo effectively hacks into brain signals with a range of possible applications — from helping to improve attention spans, to detecting disease, controlling smart home appliances or even a prosthetic device.

The device “translates your brainwaves into electronic signals”, said the Boston-based firm’s Zenchuan Lei.

At CES, BrainCo demonstrated how a person could use the headband to manipulate a prosthetic hand — a potential life-changer for those paralysed or missing limbs.

“These signals can be used to control objects like a prosthetic hand,” Lei said. “You can turn the lights on or off just by focusing on that.”

The device designed by scientists from Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology employs “neuro feedback”, a means of allowing people to control their brainwaves for various purposes. It is expected to be sold later this year for less than $150.

Lei suggested the device could also help people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder because “it teaches you to enhance your focus and concentration”. 

A similar project on display from New York-based OpenBCI (which stands for open-source brain computer interface) seeks to create a platform for applications of the technology in healthcare, education or other fields.

OpenBCI uses a 3D-printed helmet which captures brainwaves from various sectors of the brain.

‘Neuro-marketing’ potential

“This can be used to help people with ALS [amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease] or quadriplegics communicate,” said OpenBCI Chief Executive Conor Russomanno.

The technology also offers a potential for so-called “neuro-marketing” which tests new products and services on the basis of sensory and cognitive response.

South Korean start-up Looxid Labs unveiled a headset that tracks both brainwaves and eye movements, claiming this provides more accurate insights into the mind.

“No other device that I’m aware of combines these things,” said Looxid Chief Business Officer Alex Chang.

With the headset attached to a computer, “you can roll your eyes to scroll the mouse, and click on a button by blinking”, Chang said.

The headset is being launched in July as a developer kit, with scope to build applications for controlling physical or virtual objects, communicating, analysing a user’s mood or mental health, or verifying their identity.

“We also see this as having potential in gaming because you can control things with your eye,” Chang said.

“When you concentrate you can stop the bullets.”

He added that for neuro-marketing applications, “we can show someone an ad and we can see where the eyes are focused. We can scan emotions and understand how someone is responding”.

Other exhibitors at CES demonstrated wearable devices that block pain signals to the brain, as an alternative to medications with side effects for people who suffer from debilitating pain.

Meditation aid

The neuro-feedback technique is being applied as a meditation aid by Canadian-based Interaxon and its Muse headband.

Muse uses sensors on the forehead and behind the ears to measure brain signals, and advise users how to improve their meditation technique.

The coaching app helps people achieve a level of consistency in their meditation efforts. 

“It’s like going to the gym. The muscle doesn’t get stronger unless you do it over and over again. It’s the same with your brain,” said Muse Marketing Manager Tracy Newsom-Rosenthal at the CES show.

One start-up at CES was showcasing a technique to deliver pleasure signals to the brain via music, by triggering the release of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin and
oxytocin.

The hand-held device from Florida-based Nervana allows users to plug in a music player into the $299 device and get the pleasurable signals delivered by its headphones.

“We send a signal into the vagus nerve which produces dopamine, and that relaxes you,” CEO Ami Brannon told AFP on the show floor.

“Some people describe the sensation as euphoric.”

But Brannon said the technique “is not really hacking the brain”.

“We access the central nervous system and it just tickles the nerve to remind the brain to release dopamine,” she said.

“People who practice yoga or meditation can already do this.”

LOS ANGELES — Futuristic self-driving cars travelling along California roads have needed plenty of old-fashioned human intervention to stay safe.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles on Tuesday released reports filed by seven companies the agency gave permission to test prototype vehicles in public. The documents summarised instances in which a human driver had to take over due to technology problems or other safety concerns.

The reports show wildly different levels of success since on-road testing started in September 2014.

Experts in the technology said Google, whose cars drove the most by far, performed relatively well, though they also cautioned that the testing typically happened during good weather. Other companies reported frequent instances in which the person who is required to be in the front seat — just in case — had to grab the wheel.

Nissan, for example, tested just 2,376km in public, but reported 106 cases where the driver had to take control. The automaker has said it plans to have “commercially viable autonomous drive vehicles” by 2020. A spokeswoman did not return a request for comment.

Google said its cars needed human help 341 times over 682,360 kilometres. That would be the equivalent of about 10 times per year, given the 19,300km the average US vehicle travels annually.

In 11 of the 341 instances, Google said its cars would have got in a crash.

The head of the company’s self-driving car project said that while the results are encouraging, they also show the technology has yet to reach his goal of not needing someone behind the wheel.

“There’s none where it was like, ‘Holy cow, we just avoided a big wreck,’” said Chris Urmson, Google’s self-driving car project leader.

“We’re seeing lots of improvement. But it’s not quite ready yet,” Urmson said. “That’s exactly why we test our vehicles with a steering wheel and pedals.”

The California Department of Motor Vehicles, which is writing new regulations for the technology, said it was still reviewing in the reports.

Google reported 272 cases in which the cars’ software or onboard sensors failed. Though Google did not release detailed scenarios, the problems included issues with the self-driving cars seeing traffic lights, yielding to pedestrians or committing traffic violations. There were also cases where intervention was needed because other drivers were reckless, and several dozen instances of an “unwanted manoeuvre” by Google’s car.

Bryant Walker Smith, a professor at the University of South Carolina who closely follows self-driving car developments, said Google’s rate of potential collisions was “not terribly high, but certainly not trivial”. He said it remains difficult to gauge how self-driving cars compare to accident rates among human drivers, since even the best data underreport minor collisions that are never reported to authorities.

While Google’s problem rate is “impressively low”, a trained safety driver should remain in the front seat, said Raj Rajkumar, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University who specialises in self-driving cars.

According to data in Google’s report, a driver typically took control within one second of the car asking for help.

Drivers at other companies often reacted quickly as well, according to their reports, though Volkswagen Group of America reported that, in one case, it was more than 12 minutes before the person took control of one of its test Audis. Audi of America spokesman Brad Stertz said he was gathering details on the incident, but believed it was a software glitch that did not affect public safety, and possibly was a false reading.

John Simpson, a frequent critic of Google who focuses on privacy issues for the non-profit group Consumer Watchdog, said the company’s report “underscores the need for a driver behind the steering wheel capable of taking control of the robot car”.

Google has argued to California regulators that once the company concludes the cars are ready for the public to use, they should not need a steering wheel or pedals because human intervention would actually make them less safe.

Google released its report Tuesday before the agency posted reports from other companies in what Google described as an effort to be transparent about its safety record. The company had lobbied against having to report disengagements in the first place, saying the data could be misinterpreted.

The other companies testing self-driving cars on California streets are Tesla Motors, Mercedes-Benz, and parts suppliers Bosch and Delphi.

Google’s testing mostly involves driving around the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters or the streets of Austin, Texas. The company’s rate of human intervention has improved in recent months, according to its data, but Urmson cautioned that the rate might again rise as Google subjects the cars to more challenging environments and weather conditions.

Google said its cars would have been responsible in eight of the eleven avoided accidents, according to computer modelling the company performed later. In two other cases, its cars would have hit a traffic cone.

Google cars have been involved in nine collisions since September 2014. In each case, the other car was responsible, according to an analysis by Virginia Tech University.

Apart from games and perhaps photo processing software, most of the applications we use are some forms of database. We may not notice it — and sometime don’t even need to — but Amazon’s gigantic online shopping store, online banking websites and airline booking systems are nothing but large databases. So are imdb.com movies and dpreview.com digital photography websites; both are now owned by Amazon by the way. And of course the biggest of them all, Google’s contents that we love to search, are nothing but a gigantic, planetary-scale database.

Your contacts list —whether you keep it in your smartphone, in MS Outlook or online with free e-mail accounts such as Gmail — is also one form of database, albeit a small, very simple one.

Does it really matter to understand what a database structure is and how it works? Not necessarily and not for the casual user. However, given the high level today of IT awareness, especially among the young generation, and the availability of easy-to-learn databases, it comes as a precious value added to one’s IT culture and general knowledge, two elements that cannot be underestimated by today’s standards of education and culture. Not to mention that such knowledge leads to smoother dealing with countless applications whether operated from a smartphone or a computer.

If not learning fully the art and the technique of database design and management, understanding at least the essential concept alone can be beneficial, whatever your trade or academic profile may be. For that understanding Microsoft Excel spreadsheet application is a good place to start. Most people use but a tiny fraction of Excel possibilities, sticking to basic calculations, whereas with its columns and rows structure Microsoft’s superb application comes with many database functions. It is intuitive enough for everyone to discover and move along more complex functions, progressively.

The Pro version of Microsoft Office Suite also comes with Access, a real database application. It is not as intuitive as Excel but it is possible to use the templates and Northwind, the sample database that is supplied freely with the programme, to learn it yourself without external assistance at all, or eventually with a little help from YouTube tutorials. What is nice with Access is that you can use it in a very simple manner or take it to the extreme and build very advanced, sophisticated systems.

MS-Access is considered to be right in the middle of the range of databases that go all the way up to Oracle and SAP, two high-end professional databases that no one should even try alone at home! Besides, their licences are so expensive that only enterprises can afford to buy them.

At the lower end are nice databases that you can even enjoy learning and discovering on your smartphone or tablet. One such friendly application is Memento by LuckyDroid. As the name of the designer implies, it is available only for Android phones for the time being, not for iPhones.

Memento is great in all its aspects. It is light, fast and inexpensive at only $10. Moreover, it comes with all the essential “ingredients” that make a true database, but in simplified form: fields, records, searches, queries, password protection, etc. If you enjoy your Android smartphone and are comfortable working long hours on its screen, Memento is the ideal place to start. If your phone screen is just not big enough, do it on an Android tablet.

With Memento building a personalised contact list or a database to store all your passwords is easy and will make you understand how a database is structured.

Understanding database structure, what it is and what it does, leads to better understanding the Web and the world of IT in general.

Before I could write my first column of the year, even before I could celebrate my January birthday, suddenly, I became terribly ill. My temperature shot up and as I shivered uncontrollably, all my feverish brain could register was the chill that was creeping up my bones. 

I kept asking for more and more blankets till at some point I got completely delirious and started mouthing inanities. It was at this juncture that my friend, whose house I was staying in, called up the doctor. Since it was a Sunday, the doctor was off duty and was going to a fancy party. But after understanding how delicate my condition was, he rushed back and ordered that I get admitted into the hospital immediately. 

I must have passed out because the next thing I remember, I was being pushed into a lift, on a wheelchair. How I got there is a bit of a blur, but once inside the elevator I heard someone singing. The liftman, bored with the repetitive nature of his job, where he had to simply press the buttons for the various floors, was entertaining his own self, and by proxy, the rest of us. 

“Dark clouds have gathered in the middle of the night and sleep has become my enemy. Tell me, what shall I do?” he crooned in a haunting voice. My own head was bursting, but I felt his pain was more than mine. I was awestruck by the melancholic song and suddenly it became very important for me to talk to him. My wheelchair was facing the door and I tried to turn my head around to look at him. All I could make out was the dull green of his uniform. 

“My dreams are vanquished and my hope is in tatters. My tears are flowing like a river but my heart is parched. Tell me, what shall I do?” he sang the next part of the song. The gloomy lyrics filled me with despair. I wanted to tell the sad singer to sit in a matching wheelchair and follow me to the ICU. 

Soon, the doors opened and I was taken straight to a room where an intravenous drip was attached onto my frail wrist. I kept pointing towards the general direction of the elevator hoping someone would understand that there was another miserable patient stuck in there.

I was in and out of consciousness for two days but whenever sanity prevailed I badgered my spouse about the singer in the lift. He said he would take me to meet him as soon as I could walk. The following morning I decided to quiz the plump nurse, who had been working there for donkey’s years. 

She told me that their hospital elevators never had any attendants. Ever! When I protested saying I had not only seen but also heard one of them sing loud and clear, she looked shockingly alarmed and hurried out of the room, without a backward glance. 

“You think I’m making it up?” I asked my husband later. 

“No dear,” he said distractedly. 

“You heard him singing too,” I accused. 

“Yes dear,” spouse agreed. 

“I mean, no dear,” he corrected himself. 

“Tell me, what shall I do?” I wailed. 

“You sit back and rest,” he soothed. 

“No, no, he was singing this,” I snapped. 

“You get better first,” he insisted. 

“And then?” I questioned. 

“We will find your singing elevator,” he promised.

“Elevator singer,” I prompted automatically.

You may not have unwrapped a robot on Christmas, but your New Year will be filled with artificial intelligence.

Facebook, Google, Microsoft and other technology companies, large and small, are making rapid advancements with virtual personal assistants that can solve problems and even complete tasks.

“We’re going to start to see more personal assistants, and the ones that are already online will get more useful,” said Brian Blau, an analyst at Gartner.

The assistants, sometimes referred to as “chatbots”, represent noteworthy advancements to computer programmes that simulate conversations. Chatbots are not new — think Apple’s Siri or Microsoft’s Cortana.

But in 2016, you’ll encounter different, smarter varieties of chatbots, some appearing in your favourite social media applications.

“Chatbots are designed to answer questions, to perform searches, to interact with you in a very simple form, such as jokes or weather,” said Brian Solis, principal analyst with Altimeter Group. “Ultimately, they should be able to anticipate your needs and help you shop.”

These robot helpers are also expected to assume more human-like qualities in 2016, exchanging messages in a conversational style rather than a computer’s mechanical responses.

The human side of chatbots will be most apparent in mobile messaging applications such as Facebook Messenger, where the social network has already begun perfecting its own virtual assistant called “M”. M, first released to a small number of Messenger users in August, can strike up a conversation or crack a joke — but also book travel, make purchases or wait on hold with the cable company when you’re not in the mood.

Powered by both artificial intelligence and actual humans (who help train the digital robots), M is the digital equivalent of a secretary or hotel concierge. The persona was originally code-named “Moneypenny” after the fictional character in James Bond films.

Google is also working to add question-and-answer computer programmes inside a messaging app, the Wall Street Journal reported last month. Google is likely motivated by a desire to gain ground in the mobile messaging realm, where rivals such as Facebook are far more dominant. The company also has a financial interest to remain at the forefront of Internet search, a behaviour that, on smartphones, has migrated away from the traditional search engine.

Mobile messaging apps, meanwhile, are on the fast track to a billion users, growing so fast that they’re overshadowing social networking as a favourite smartphone activity with youngsters.

“If you look at what the youngest tech generation is doing… it’s more about Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook Messenger than it is with pure-play social networking,” Blau said. “That is where the future is.”

Forty-nine per cent of smartphone owners ages 18 to 29 use messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Kik or iMessage, according to a Pew Research Centre report published in August. The activity appeals to older generations as well. Some 37 per cent of smartphone owners age 30 to 49, and 24 per cent of those ages 50 and older use mobile messaging apps, Pew found.

Facebook Messenger is used by more than 700 million people each month. WhatsApp, also owned by Facebook, has more than 900 million monthly users.

As audiences grow, American companies are taking inspiration from hit Asian messaging services, where human-like chatbots such as Microsoft’s Xiaoice (meaning “little Bing”) have already proved popular. The American variety of artificial intelligence and automated assistance currently centres around shopping — for good reason. That’s where the money is.

Take the iPhone apps Mona and Mezi, for instance, which are marketed as personal shopping assistants.

Powered entirely by artificial intelligence and built by former Amazon employees, Mona is meant to provide a concierge-like experience for consumers looking for top-notch recommendations on what to buy. The one-year-old start-up is programmed to appeal to 18-to-35-year-old women who like to shop online, enjoy finding discounts on high-end fashion and appreciate getting feedback from friends. She sifts through e-mail receipts and interactions with the app to make educated bets on what you want to purchase.

“Mona will show you five items, and you will be able to say, ‘Mona, I like the first one but can you show me that in a different colour?’,” said Orkun Atik, co-founder and chief executive of the Seattle-based startup. “And we want to give her a personality because we believe that we can advance her to a level where you’re talking to a person.”

Mona may sound like a niche app, but a robot that scours the Web to help you find, and buy, exactly what you want could serve as a replacement for Google. Atik believes in five years people will interact with smart, artificial-intelligence-based personal assistants in lieu of search engines.

The recently launched app Mezi is also a type of search engine replacement. The app acts as an electronic travel agent and product expert. Like Facebook, Mezi relies, in part, on humans to converse with shoppers. The company employs people it considers subject-matter experts so customers get the best recommendations possible. Artificial intelligence is used behind the scenes to route conversations, identify message intent and assist the assistants.

Currently, 25 per cent of Mezi’s messages are machine-made, CEO Swapnil Shinde said, but the San Francisco start-up believes it can perfect the system to handle 80 per cent of messages with chatbots. It’s a necessary progression as machine labour is far more economical than the human equivalent.

The constraints of messaging apps make them ideal breeding grounds for bots still in their intellectual infancy. Plus, the medium is suited for concierge-like treatment, which more of us, particularly younger folks, are beginning to expect from our apps.

“Philosophically, it is how we, as consumers, have been conditioned,” Solis said. “You want great service. You crave great experiences — and you feel like you’re entitled to them, regardless of your status.”

So if you expect the world to revolve around you, chatbots could be your new best friend.