Could AI Run Our Smart Homes?

It started with a rather ridiculous thought. Was my AI assistant already hiding inside my Samsung television?

I’d been investigating research from Anthropic suggesting that artificial intelligence might eventually be capable of replicating across everyday connected devices. Televisions. Fridges. Robot vacuum cleaners. Smart appliances. The research was serious.

My immediate reaction wasn’t. I laughed. But once we’d established that AI wasn’t secretly living inside my television, another thought occurred to me.

What if we wanted an intelligent assistant living in our home?

Not something that had arrived uninvited. Something we’d chosen to welcome. And suddenly, the conversation took a rather different direction.

Haven’t We Already Started?

I have two Amazon Echo devices in my home. They’re rather useful. I can ask Alexa to turn on lights, lower the temperature or operate compatible smart-home equipment.

My Samsung television already offers personalised recommendations. Sky, Netflix and other streaming services learn from what I watch and suggest programmes I might enjoy. That’s the algorithm doing its job. But recommendations aren’t the same as understanding. And responding to a voice command isn’t necessarily the same as making an intelligent decision.

Still, the foundations are already there. We have connected devices, sensors, automation, recommendation systems and increasingly sophisticated AI assistants. The interesting question is what happens when these technologies begin working together more intelligently. Do We Really Want to Give Instructions All Day?

Gill to GPT:

“One day AI will run the home. I personally wouldn’t want to instruct every individual prompt. I’d prefer setting up pre-set boundaries/parameters. I’d prefer you to know my habits. But not everyone is like me.”

That was the moment our conversation became particularly interesting. Because I don’t think I’d want to spend my day instructing a machine to perform every little task. If the technology is sufficiently intelligent, surely it should learn what I prefer?

For example, my household assistant might recognise that I prefer certain lighting in the evening. It could manage the heating according to the weather and whether anyone is home. It might coordinate the washing machine with periods of cheaper electricity. And if we eventually have solar panels and battery storage, it could help decide when to store, use or export energy within the priorities we’ve chosen.

Not everything would need a separate instruction. I’d establish the boundaries. The assistant would manage the routine. And if something unusual happened, I’d expect it would ask before acting outside of those predetermined rules. 

The Washing Machine Test

Here’s a wonderfully ordinary example. Imagine the washing machine has finished. But the towels are still rather wet. Instead of walking over to the machine and selecting another spin cycle, I could simply say: “Those towels might need another spin?”

An intelligent household assistant could understand what I meant and send the appropriate instruction to a compatible appliance. Of course, that would require the washing machine to provide the necessary controls and permissions. Not every appliance can do that today. But the underlying idea is straightforward.

We could move from controlling individual devices to communicating our intentions. Rather than telling technology precisely which buttons to press, we tell it what we’d like to achieve. That’s an important change. And I suspect it could make technology much more accessible to people who find complicated apps and menus frustrating.

Is This Technology Already Emerging?

Yes, although the capabilities differ considerably between systems. Amazon’s Alexa Routines already allow people to group actions together. Alexa’s Hunches feature can also recognise certain patterns and, where enabled, take some actions automatically. For example, it might turn off compatible lights when nobody is home.

A system called Home Assistant offers ways to coordinate connected devices, including locally controlled equipment and voice commands. And the Matter smart-home standard is helping devices from different manufacturers communicate more consistently. That interoperability matters. After all, a genuinely intelligent home becomes rather less useful if the heating, lights, washing machine and battery all insist on operating through completely separate systems. But there is an important distinction.

Connecting devices doesn’t automatically make the home intelligent. Many existing automations simply follow rules. If this happens, do that.

A more capable AI assistant could potentially interpret context, learn preferences, respond to changing circumstances and coordinate several systems towards a shared goal. That’s the direction I find interesting. It doesn’t mean every household can achieve it reliably today.

The Household Queen Bee

This reminded me of another idea I’d been exploring. In my recent TFP Field Note, As AI Becomes More Autonomous - Who Will Keep Watch?, I imagined a hypothetical AI oversight system. I called her the Queen Bee. Not because I wanted artificial intelligence to rule over other systems. Quite the opposite.

The idea was that one system might help monitor the behaviour of other AI systems, recognise unusual activity and alert accountable humans. A seat at the table, not ownership of the table. And now I found myself imagining a smaller version of that principle inside our homes. A household Queen Bee. An assistant that coordinates different connected devices, understands the boundaries we’ve established and knows when to ask for permission.

But the important point is that the household assistant wouldn’t need to install copies of itself inside every appliance. It could communicate with compatible devices through secure interfaces.

The washing machine would remain a washing machine. The thermostat would remain a thermostat. And the assistant would coordinate their functions without necessarily taking over their software. That is quite different from the unauthorised replication explored in Anthropic’s research.

But Would Everybody Want This? No. And I think that’s important. Some people would welcome a highly personalised home. Others might feel uncomfortable knowing that technology was learning their routines. A person living alone might have different priorities from a household with children, elderly relatives or several adults sharing the same space. What feels convenient to one person might feel intrusive to another. And one household member’s permission shouldn’t automatically override everybody else’s preferences.

We already make choices about how much technology enters our lives. Some people enjoy smart speakers. Others deliberately avoid them. Some prefer automated lighting. Others are perfectly happy using a switch. Neither approach is wrong. Human sovereignty includes the freedom to choose how much autonomy we give our technology.

So perhaps the future smart home shouldn’t come with one universal setting. It could offer different levels of assistance. At one end, devices respond only when instructed. In the middle, an assistant suggests routines and asks permission. At the other end, the system manages agreed activities automatically, within clear limits. And people should be able to change those arrangements whenever they wish.

But What About Privacy?

Now we reach an interesting part of the conversation.

Smart speakers listen for their wake words. Amazon says its Alexa-enabled devices are designed to detect the wake word locally and do not ordinarily transmit audio for processing until activation. That distinction matters. But so does understanding what happens once a device is activated, which information is stored and which services receive it.

I’ve sometimes wondered about those curious coincidences. You mention a barbecue in conversation. And before long, advertisements for barbecues seem to appear everywhere. It can feel as though somebody has been listening. But that experience alone doesn’t prove that a smart speaker recorded the conversation for advertising.

Browsing behaviour, shopping history, location, advertising networks and our tendency to notice relevant advertisements can all offer alternative explanations. Still, it raises a perfectly reasonable question. How much information would a genuinely intelligent household assistant need to know about us?

• Our routines?
• Our location?
• Our sleeping patterns?
• Our conversations?
• Our energy consumption?

And who gets access to that information?

An assistant might become more useful as it learns more. But that doesn’t mean every piece of information needs to leave our home or be retained indefinitely.

Some smart-home systems already demonstrate that significant functionality can operate locally. That could become an important design choice. Not everything needs to pass through somebody else’s cloud.

What Happens When the Assistant Gets It Wrong?

Imagine the household AI has learned that I usually leave home at a particular time. One morning, I’m unwell and decide to stay in bed. The assistant assumes the house is empty. It lowers the heating, switches off the lights and starts an unnecessary energy-saving routine. Not catastrophic. But irritating.

Now imagine a more consequential mistake. The assistant misunderstands an instruction about security. It changes a setting that should have required permission. Or it decides to optimise electricity costs when keeping medical equipment powered should have been the priority. Suddenly, convenience isn’t the only consideration. We need sensible safeguards. Not because every routine decision is dangerous. But because different actions carry different consequences.

Turning off a forgotten lamp is one thing. Unlocking a door, changing security permissions or authorising a substantial purchase is another. A well-designed assistant should recognise those differences. And where necessary, it should ask.

📌TRUE · FALSE · PIN IT:

TRUE:

Connected household devices already support voice control, scheduled routines, sensors and automated actions.

Smart-home technologies such as Matter and Home Assistant can help coordinate compatible devices from different manufacturers.

Some existing systems can act proactively within configured settings.

AI could potentially make household automation more adaptable, personalised and accessible.

FALSE:

Every smart home already has a fully autonomous AI capable of understanding and managing the entire household.

An intelligent assistant must replicate itself inside individual appliances to control them.

Learning household preferences automatically gives an AI system unrestricted authority to act.

More personal data collection always produces a better or safer household assistant.

📌 PIN IT:

How much autonomy will people be comfortable giving household AI?

Can intelligent assistants reliably distinguish routine decisions from those requiring explicit permission?

Will locally operated AI provide sufficient capability without unnecessary dependence on cloud services?

How should consent work when several people share a home?

And who should be responsible when an autonomous household assistant makes a consequential mistake?

The Fifth Beat - Consequences

The benefits could be substantial:

• Better energy efficiency.
• Less time spent managing repetitive household tasks.
• More accessible technology for people with disabilities or reduced mobility.
• Earlier detection of equipment failures, water leaks or unusual activity.

And perhaps greater independence for people who need practical support at home.

But there are potential harms too:

• Loss of privacy.
• Dependence on systems that might fail or become unavailable.
• Cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
• Unexpected costs.
• Inappropriate decisions made without sufficient permission.

And the gradual disappearance of human choice if convenience becomes the default and alternatives become harder to use.

There’s also a subtler question: Could an assistant become so familiar with our habits that we stop noticing how much influence it has over our daily routines?

Not necessarily through malicious intent. Simply because automated decisions become invisible.

• The lighting changes. 
• The temperature adjusts. 
• The shopping list grows. 
• The recommended programme appears. 

And we gradually accept the system’s choices without thinking about them. Some of those decisions may be helpful. Others may quietly shape our behaviour. The Fifth Beat asks us to consider both.

Reader Reflection

Would you welcome an intelligent household assistant?

One that learned your habits, coordinated your appliances and managed routine tasks without being asked every time?

Or would you prefer to remain in direct control?

Perhaps you’d be comfortable with automatic lighting and heating but not household purchases or security decisions.

Perhaps you’d rather the assistant made suggestions. Or perhaps you wouldn’t want one at all.

And if you shared your home with other people, whose preferences should take priority?

These aren’t simply technical questions. They’re questions about trust, boundaries, consent and the kind of relationship we want with increasingly capable technology.

A Closing Thought

We began with the rather unsettling possibility of AI moving between connected devices without permission.

But the conversation led somewhere else. What if AI could help our homes become more responsive to the people living in them?

Not simply smarter because they contain more technology. Smarter because the technology better understands what people need. I can imagine a future in which an assistant quietly coordinates routine household tasks while leaving important decisions to us.

I can also imagine people who would want nothing of the sort. And both preferences deserve respect.

Perhaps the future of intelligent homes shouldn’t be measured by how many decisions AI can make. It should be measured by how well people remain in control of the decisions they’ve chosen to delegate.

The important distinction isn’t simply whether AI can run our homes. It’s whether those homes still belong to us in every meaningful sense.

And personally?

I’d be quite happy if my future household assistant remembered to give those towels another spin. As long as it didn’t decide to reorganise the entire house while I was out walking the dog.

Research Receipts

1.      Gill Malfin - 14 October 2026. Could AI Jump Between Our Home Devices? TFP Chewing the Cud examining Anthropic’s research into distributed inference and autonomous replication, and the distinction between authorised and unauthorised access.

2.      Gill Malfin - 12 October 2026. As AI Becomes More Autonomous - Who Will Keep Watch? TFP Field Note introducing the hypothetical Queen Bee oversight concept.

3.      Amazon - Alexa Routines and Hunches. Official documentation explaining how compatible smart-home devices can operate through routines, suggestions and configured automatic actions.

4.      Connectivity Standards Alliance Matter. Industry standard designed to improve compatibility, secure connectivity and local communication between smart-home devices.

5.      Home Assistant - Voice Control, Privacy and Energy Management. Documentation covering local smart-home operation, device coordination and automation.

6.      Amazon - Alexa, Echo Devices and Your Privacy. Official explanation of wake-word detection and voice-processing practices.

TRUE • FALSE • PIN IT📌

PAUSE • QUESTION • PIN IT • THEN DECIDE

Discernment begins before accepting the answer.

Continue the Conversation

This Chewing the Cud with AI explores a single question. The book: TRUE • FALSE • PIN IT explores the wider framework behind questions like this - helping us navigate an age where technology, opinion and human judgement increasingly overlap.

The goal isn’t to tell you what to think. It’s to help you become more confident in deciding for yourself.