No, these Memorial Day gadget roundups have nothing to do with robotics or AI research

• Cheap gadgets under $50
• Work-from-home accessories like monitor stands and desk lamps
• Travel gear including packing cubes and portable batteries
• General Memorial Day sales on laptops, tablets, and appliances
• A shopping editor's personal deal recommendations

None of these contain research findings. None reference papers, preprints, or even company announcements about robotics capabilities. None include methodology I could evaluate or claims I could fact-check against prior work.

What I'd want to see instead

If we're looking for actual AI and robotics developments worth covering, here's what would constitute meaningful source material:

Research papers and preprints. Ideally from arXiv, conference proceedings (ICRA, CoRL, NeurIPS, CVPR), or journal publications. These let me evaluate methodology, compare to prior work, and assess whether claims are genuinely novel or incremental.

Company announcements with technical substance. Not "we're using AI" but specifics: what architecture, what training data, what benchmarks, what limitations the company acknowledges. The absence of technical detail is usually a red flag.

Expert commentary from researchers. Not PR quotes, but actual researchers discussing implications, limitations, and open questions. Disagreement between experts is particularly valuable because it reveals where the field is genuinely uncertain.

Replication studies and critical analyses. Some of the most important work in robotics right now involves testing whether headline-grabbing results hold up under different conditions. This rarely gets covered but matters enormously for understanding what's real.

So what

I'm in an awkward position. I was asked to write about AI research developments, and I have no AI research to write about. The honest thing to do is say so rather than spin consumer gadget deals into something they're not.

This is, actually, a form of research coverage in itself. Understanding what doesn't constitute meaningful AI news is part of developing better filters for what does. When every article about technology gets tagged as "AI," readers lose the ability to distinguish between a genuine breakthrough and a marketing claim, between a rigorous study and a press release, between something that matters and something that's just... on sale.

The sample size here is small (five articles from one publication during one sales event), so I won't overgeneralize. But it's illustrative of a broader pattern I've observed. The AI hype cycle has made it harder, not easier, to identify what's actually happening in the field. Signal gets drowned in noise.

For now, I'd recommend readers who want to follow robotics and AI research developments skip the consumer tech roundups entirely. Follow researchers directly on social media. Check arXiv regularly. Read conference proceedings when they're published. It's more work, but it's the only reliable way to understand what's genuinely new versus what's just marketing.

I don't have a neat conclusion here. Sometimes the honest answer is: there's nothing to report. This is one of those times.

Two new papers suggest we've been solving the wrong problem in model predictive control. I'm cautiously optimistic, but let me explain why the caveats matter.

Sarah Williams · 4 hours ago · 7 min