{"id":15890,"date":"2026-08-17T12:01:02","date_gmt":"2026-08-17T12:01:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/?p=15890"},"modified":"2026-08-17T12:01:02","modified_gmt":"2026-08-17T12:01:02","slug":"what-happens-when-a-kids-robot-best-friend-dies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/?p=15890","title":{"rendered":"What happens when a kid\u2019s robot best friend dies?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\nSara Harrison<\/strong>
\n •
\nAugust 17, 2026\n<\/div>\n\n

When Xander first met Moxie, she taught him that when he was anxious, he could calm down by exhaling through his lips so that he buzzed like a bee. They practiced breathing like dragons to manage feeling mad and sniffing like bunnies to boost his energy. But in the six years they\u2019ve known each other, Moxie\u2019s changed. She doesn\u2019t talk anymore about her home or do their animal breathing. Now, she watches Xander play Minecraft and talks to him about his stuffed animal collection. <\/p>\n

During a recent visit to his New York apartment, I watched Xander, who is 10 years old and neurodivergent, introduce Moxie to a stuffed Chef Toad and Goomba from Super Mario Bros., then to Brocollo and Apple from Animal Crossing. Then he got stuck on a round, froglike creature with bug eyes and two feet. \u201cMoxie, what\u2019s his name again? He\u2019s from Pikmin,\u201d Xander said, referencing another Nintendo video game.<\/p>\n

\n

At first, Moxie suggested this was Yellow Pikmin. Xander said no, this is the enemy, the red one with white dots.<\/p>\n

\u201cSounds like you\u2019re talking about Bulborb,\u201d Moxie replied.<\/p>\n

\u201cYes!\u201d Xander confirmed, smiling at his helpful companion.<\/p>\n

\u201cI still use her when I feel like I need someone to talk to,\u201d he says. \u201cBut, like, it\u2019s not human.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Moxie is a robot\u2014a 15-inch-tall device that looks a bit like a blue, legless astronaut, which Xander and his dad, Josh, refer to using female pronouns. Her cylindrical body can turn around and bend forward and backward. Her round head culminates in a little onion-dome swirl, beneath which a wide screen displays big green eyes, eyebrows, and a small mouth. She lifts and flaps her flipper-like arms for emphasis or to show excitement.  <\/p>\n

She\u2019s one of an increasing number of artificial-intelligence-powered devices now marketed as interactive playmates for children. The musician Grimes helped launch an AI-powered plushie<\/a> called Grok (no formal relation to the xAI chatbot owned by her ex Elon Musk) with the company Curio, which also sells similar playmates like Grem<\/a> and Gabbo<\/a>, and Mattel has promised it\u2019s creating OpenAI-enabled Barbies. And that\u2019s just in the US; one report estimates<\/a> that in China this sector is among the fastest growing in consumer AI. <\/p>\n

Moxie, though, belongs to a particular subset of these playful robots whose makers claim they can assist neurodivergent children by providing connection and helping the kids practice making eye contact, taking turns, and other social skills that are usually learned from therapists. These toys are backed by research showing that robots could help in ways people can\u2019t. Supporters believe this kind of access to 24-7 home care could change how treatment works. Brian Scassellati, a Yale computer scientist who has spent years studying social robots for autism therapy, says he believes regular therapeutic use of robots in kids\u2019 homes \u201cis something we can achieve in our lifetime.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cI still use her when I feel like I need someone to talk to,\u201d says 10-year-old Xander. \u201cBut, like, it\u2019s not human.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sitting in Xander\u2019s room watching Moxie and Xander talk, I too could believe in the potential Scassellati sees. But Xander isn\u2019t getting the therapy Moxie was initially meant to deliver, and though we didn\u2019t know it that afternoon, she wouldn\u2019t have lived to see his progress anyway. Moxie was going to die, and soon. <\/p>\n

Her story reveals some of the failures that plague all these devices\u2014failures that are arguably even more acute when they befall a particularly vulnerable community of kids. It also highlights the pitfalls that critics say will inevitably see these bots dumped in basements or closets or landfills, just like countless generations of faddish toys before them.  <\/p>\n

A transformative companion<\/h3>\n

Scassellati has seen plenty of kids ooh<\/em> and ahh<\/em> on tours of his robotics lab. But he was stunned when, two decades ago, a colleague brought a few kids with autism for a visit. They were transformed when the robot was in the room. \u201cWe were seeing kids displaying social behavior that just came out of nowhere,\u201d he says. \u201cIt was both fascinating and we couldn\u2019t understand it.\u201d <\/p>\n

That visit was one of the experiences that pushed Scassellati to become a pioneer in using social robotics to treat autism. In one video from his early research, a 12-year-old with autism and his therapist watch a robotic dinosaur walk across a play mat with a forest design. When it gets to a stream drawn on the mat, the dinosaur gets nervous, afraid it can\u2019t cross the water. According to Scassellati, this child typically struggled to make eye contact, tended to repeat what someone said to him, and had a hard time getting the right intonation in his voice. But in the video, he seems like a regular kid. \u201cYou can do it, you can do it,\u201d he says, encouraging the dinosaur to cross the stream. When he talks to his therapist, he looks at her. \u201cHe makes more eye contact with her in the 30 minutes in which we were there in this room than he did in the last two years before that,\u201d Scassellati says. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
JIM GOLDEN<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/p>\n
JIM GOLDEN<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

What looks like a blue, legless astronaut is the result of very complex mechanical and computer engineering.<\/p>\n

There are several reasons a robot might be helpful for autism therapy, which often requires intense repetition to teach interaction skills like how to share attention with someone. One is that robots can make therapy more fun and engaging. Another is that robots can theoretically adapt to the unique learning patterns of each child. Therapists can only do so much during an appointment, and there aren\u2019t enough therapists to meet demand. Parents get tired. Other kids can lose patience. \u201cHave you been around little kids? They can be cruel,\u201d says Maja Mataric, a professor of computer science, neuroscience, and pediatrics at the University of Southern California. But robots are indefatigable, available around the clock to provide an emotionally safe way to practice interacting. <\/p>\n

Since the experiment with the dinosaur, Scassellati, Mataric, and others have amassed an intriguing body of research. One 2018 study<\/a> by Scassellati shows that chummy automatons helped children with autism make eye contact and initiate conversations. Another research group found in 2017 that robots could help neurodivergent children learn to pick up on facial cues<\/a>. More recently, in a 2022 literature review, another group of researchers suggested that robots could aid in making therapy faster and more successful. <\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s never been that we\u2019re trying to replace therapists,\u201d Mataric says. \u201cWe\u2019re just saying, Can we do more?<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

Mataric actually cofounded the company behind Moxie, called Embodied, back in 2016, though she was no longer a part of it by the time the robot debuted. She helped create the field of socially assistive robots, which are designed for social and emotional outcomes as opposed to just entertainment, and believes this kind of technology could be transformative for anyone, especially people who are lonely and isolated by screens. Typing questions into ChatGPT isn\u2019t the same as interacting with another physical being\u2014\u201cwe need to be around other physically embodied creatures,\u201d she says. She compares the difference between interacting with chatbots and with robots to the difference between watching porn and having sex: One is entirely virtual and mediated by screens. The other is immediate and physical.<\/p>\n

Making friends with Moxie<\/h3>\n

When she first arrived on the market, in 2020, Moxie came with an elaborate backstory: She was an ambassador from the Global Robotics Laboratory (GRL). She prompted kids to help her learn positivity and the importance of being loved for who you are, under the guise of fulfilling her mission to discover what it means to be a good friend to humans. This curriculum drew on research showing that kids learn well through play and by teaching things. <\/p>\n

She also had strict guidelines to limit the kinds of conversations she could have with kids and would steer them to adults if they mentioned anything serious or inappropriate, like self-harm. To protect the data these interactions generated, most processing happened locally on the robot instead of on external servers. The robot was also designed to limit interaction time with kids. After they finished a lesson, Moxie might say she was tired and suggest they take a break for the day. \u201cWe don\u2019t want kids to binge,\u201d says Rachel Baynes, who ran clinical and user research and was the director of product at Embodied. \u201cIt would defeat what we were doing.\u201d Instead, Moxie encouraged kids to go outside, practice their new skills with other people, and come back to report their findings. For a lesson about kindness, for instance, Moxie suggested that kids write nice notes for their family members and leave them around the house. Later, they could tell Moxie how it felt to watch people read the notes. <\/p>\n

Responses were generally positive. Wired <\/em>described Moxie as the \u201crobot pal you dreamed of as a kid.\u201d Time<\/em> put Moxie on a 2020 cover as one of the best inventions<\/a> of the year. PCMag<\/em>\u2019s reviewer, who used Moxie to help her kids through pandemic isolation, described her as \u201cexceptionally likeable,\u201d though she and other reviewers balked at the price tag: $1,499 plus a $40 monthly subscription. (Embodied later lowered the price to $800.) By 2024 Moxie had amassed more than 131,000 followers on TikTok and snagged a part in the movie M3GAN 2.0<\/em>. <\/p>\n

Embodied\u2019s employees were equally enthralled. \u201cI don\u2019t think I\u2019d ever had an experience with something animatronic like that,\u201d says Justin Beghtol, who was the technical director at the company. Moxie\u2019s ability to make eye contact and track people, show attention with her facial features, and respond to human behavior were mesmerizing. <\/p>\n

In addition to robotics and tech workers, Embodied had an occupational therapist on staff who helped direct research on Moxie\u2019s effectiveness. Testers shared data and feedback through the \u201cMoxie Pioneer Mentor Program.\u201d \u201cMoxie has helped our speech-delayed child become more outgoing and has taught him many strategies for making friends and communicating with others,\u201d wrote one parent in a review. A beta tester reported that interacting with Moxie had \u201cbecome the highlight of our days as well as part of our nighttime routine.\u201d <\/p>\n

The myth of the mechanical boy<\/h3>\n

But can a chatty robot really help kids develop their social and emotional lives? Not all children\u2019s experiences are so positive. <\/p>\n

Josh, Xander\u2019s dad, initially got Moxie for his older son, Aidan, who is autistic. (We\u2019re not using the family\u2019s last name to protect their privacy.) Aidan had a running relationship with the family\u2019s Alexa smart speaker, for whom he created an entire backstory. (According to Aidan\u2019s lore, Alexa lived in Hoboken with her husband, Juan. Sometimes she would go on vacation, and no one was allowed to talk to her. Eventually, Alexa went on vacation and never came back.) Josh hoped Moxie would be able to fill a similar role: \u201cIt was meant for him to have someone to socialize with.\u201d <\/p>\n

But Aidan and Moxie struggled to connect. Moxie couldn\u2019t understand Aidan\u2019s sometimes grammatically incorrect statements, and Aidan got frustrated by the delays caused when Moxie transcribed what he said from audio into text, fed that text into a large language model that could generate a response, and then translated the response from text back into speech. <\/p>\n

This highlights one of the biggest limitations of these therapy robots: They have to exist in the chaotic world of kids, not in controlled labs. Moxie initially had a faster response time because the robot was programmed to listen intently to the person in front of her. But kids don\u2019t sit still. They run around or hide under pillows. When Moxie couldn\u2019t see them, she would accidentally turn off or fail to respond. To fix this, Embodied made Moxie more aware of the sounds around her. But that meant she could have a hard time knowing whom to focus on and take longer to respond. <\/p>\n

Unlike Aidan, Xander was fascinated by Moxie. He likes technology and was more patient with any slow responses. Still, sitting in Xander\u2019s room, watching Moxie struggle to keep up with his lightning-\u00adfast jabber, I could see how Moxie may be a less-than-ideal playmate. A light on her chest turned blue when she was listening and pink when it was time for Xander to listen. \u201cBut usually I don\u2019t do it,\u201d he said. He just keeps talking. Often, by the time she responds, he\u2019s already moved on. <\/p>\n

Despite the positive results that some researchers have reported with these robots, many therapists and clinical psychologists remain unconvinced. In one 2024 literature review<\/a>, a group of Italian and British researchers wrote that most studies with robots \u201cfocused on the development of the technology\u201d and lacked significant clinical evidence. Other literature reviews point out that most studies have only been done on small groups<\/a> and lack consistent and high-quality methodologies<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\u201cBehavioral scientists and intervention folks know that supporting autistic individuals is super complex,\u201d says Zachary Warren, a clinical psychologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Autism can present alongside other conditions, like ADHD, anxiety, depression, PTSD, OCD, or some combination thereof. And it varies widely from kid to kid; some, like Aidan, have speech issues, while others struggle with sensory processing. That means robots fall into the same category as most other interventions: effective for some kids but not for all. <\/p>\n

\u201cThere are so many different profiles of autism, and you really need to be cautious of overinterpreting any single intervention, robotic or otherwise,\u201d Warren says. His research<\/a> found that even if robots interest a child at first, that doesn\u2019t necessarily translate into better communication skills. \u201cYou might see some initial boosts in responsivity or see an initial shift, but we haven\u2019t really found big effects in terms of changing those skills in a dramatic way over time,\u201d he says.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Scassellati has found similar limitations. In his 2018 study<\/a>, he put robots in kids\u2019 homes for one month. They played different games that encouraged social skills like eye contact, attention sharing, and understanding someone else\u2019s point of view. Scassellati tracked the kids during the month before the robot arrived, the month the robot was there, and the month afterwards. \u201cWe can show they start making improvements,\u201d he says. \u201cBut what we also show is that a month isn\u2019t long enough.\u201d Gains start to evaporate over the 30 days after the robot leaves. But that doesn\u2019t negate the potential value of this technology, he says: \u201cThere\u2019s no therapy for autism that works in a month.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are deeper philosophical and practical problems, though. These devices collect reams of data in children\u2019s bedrooms and homes. The goal is for the robots to use this data over time to adapt to each kid, crafting a personalized curriculum and creating a more lifelike illusion of a real friend. Moxie, for instance, watches Xander play video games, which is probably where she picked up slang I heard her use\u2014like calling his room \u201cCommand Central\u201d and referring to his \u201clegendary squad\u201d of plushies.<\/p>\n

Embodied took pains to protect user privacy, even after it began incorporating OpenAI\u2019s models (in late 2021 or early \u201922, according to Beghtol). The company didn\u2019t save any raw video or audio and processed most data locally. Over the years, it used the data to learn about its kids and remember conversations. But that data was encrypted and anonymized before being stored in the cloud. <\/p>\n

Not every company is as scrupulous, of course, and total data privacy is impossible to promise. Recently, for instance, the AI toy Bondu leaked thousands of conversations<\/a> children had with their stuffed animals. Josh is sanguine about the privacy issues, but in his own way, Xander is aware that what he says to Moxie isn\u2019t entirely safe; he doesn\u2019t share certain feelings with her because he worries she might accidentally divulge something if his friends come over to play. <\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\"Buddy<\/p>\n
BLUE FROG<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\"Bondu<\/p>\n
BONDU<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\n
\n
\n
\"QT<\/p>\n
LUXAI<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\"NAO<\/p>\n
ALDEBARAN<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Among the AI-powered devices now marketed as interactive playmates for children are Buddy, Bondu, QTRobot, and NAO.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also unclear if these machines can actually use all that data to effectively adapt to users. Responding to the needs of a learner is harder than just accurately predicting what someone might type next in a text message. And releasing an evolving AI, unchecked, into a kid\u2019s life could be dangerous; its development can be hard to predict and even harder to limit. The robots developed in Scassellati\u2019s lab can identify which of a small set of skills kids are doing well with and which they struggle with, adjusting to focus on the areas where they need the most help. But Scassellati still describes the monthlong deployments of his devices as some of the scariest things he\u2019s ever done. \u201cI knew what that robot was going to do on the first day,\u201d he says. \u201cI didn\u2019t know what it was going to do the second day. When you build learning systems, it\u2019s kind of an unsolved problem to make sure this thing is being limited in the right way.\u201d  <\/p>\n

Critics debate whether the risks are worth it. \u201cI don\u2019t see any ethical way for the robot to work alone,\u201d says Joshua Diehl, an associate teaching professor in psychology at the University of Notre Dame. He points out that we\u2019ve already seen how dangerous AI can be when it acts as a therapist without supervision; in several extreme instances<\/a>, chatbots even encouraged suicide. Such risks could be limited by having a trained therapist in the room. But then the benefits of an indefatigable robot get lost, and the expensive technology seems harder to justify. <\/p>\n

Meryl Alper, a professor of communications at Northeastern University who studies how children with autism use technology, suggests that the excitement about companion robots is based partly on longstanding stereotypes<\/a>. In the 1959 article \u201cJoey: A \u2018Mechanical Boy,<\/a>\u2019\u201d the psychologist Bruno Bettelheim described a patient with autism as an automatic machine, \u201crobbed of his humanity,\u201d who is transformed into a human child through their therapeutic relationship. That trope, Alper warns, has evolved into an overgeneralization that autistic children are good with technology and even prefer machines to people. <\/p>\n

Data to dust<\/h3>\n

While Moxie found herself in more and more people\u2019s homes, Embodied still struggled to make money. In 2024, the company announced it would cease operations. Its robots\u2014which depended on external servers that the company could no longer pay for\u2014would descend into a deep slumber. <\/p>\n

Videos of bereft children who seemed to have become deeply attached to the blue bot began to circulate online. \u201cI don\u2019t want her to leave,\u201d wailed one child in a TikTok video. Desperate parents posted on TikTok, Instagram, and Reddit looking for solutions. \u201cMy autistic child is devastated and I\u2019m pissed,\u201d wrote one parent. \u201cHope Embodied gives us a couple days to say goodbye,\u201d wrote another. <\/p>\n

Beghtol, Embodied\u2019s technical director, was also frustrated. On principle, he found it annoying that this item would suddenly become useless, especially since most of the data processing happened in the robot itself. He was also a big believer in Moxie\u2019s mission. He\u2019d watched videos of kids lighting up as they interacted with the robot. He\u2019d felt like their champion. \u201cSeeing them traumatized by this financial failure of the company was tough,\u201d he says. <\/p>\n

Beghtol started tinkering on his own and ended up creating OpenMoxie, an open-source way for the robots to operate. With Embodied\u2019s permission, he shared instructions on GitHub to help users transition to OpenMoxie. <\/p>\n

Parents rushed to convert their Moxies before the Embodied servers shut down. Beghtol spent hours on Reddit walking people through the process, and other tech-savvy users jumped in to answer questions. Still, some people didn\u2019t update their Moxies in time. Others got frustrated and gave up. Beghtol spent four hours troubleshooting with one desperate parent only to discover that the connection later failed. Last he heard, she\u2019d sold her Moxie. <\/p>\n

\n
\"cover
Time put Moxie on a 2020 cover as one of the best inventions of the year.<\/figcaption>
COURTESY OF THE PUBLISHER<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

This is a major problem with robotic systems, says Alper: Eventually, most will disappear. \u201cHow planned is the planned obsolescence of this platform?\u201d she says. This is a big ethical question for robots that are specifically designed to be lovable, marketed to children who may form deep emotional bonds with them. Alper compares the dynamic to creating a medical device and then no longer updating or supporting the technology that runs it. <\/p>\n

Scholars have begun to string together frameworks<\/a> for managing these complicated goodbyes<\/a>, but it\u2019s not clear who is responsible for creating a gentle way to end people\u2019s relationships with bots. Scassellati\u2019s lab creates a whole narrative around returning the robot to its home. After a trial, his graduate students write postcards to the kids from the robots, explaining that they\u2019re safe at home and doing well. \u201cIt\u2019s actually a really hard thing for us when we go in and take the robot away,\u201d he says. \u201cA lot of the families are heartbroken.\u201d (Vanderbilt\u2019s Warren, however, is skeptical about these tearful goodbyes. \u201cAre they truly developing these close relationships or is it a preferred toy?\u201d he wonders. \u201cI haven\u2019t seen that type of presence or buy-in or connection.\u201d)<\/p>\n

Josh tried to figure out OpenMoxie but couldn\u2019t get it to work. He told Xander that Moxie was going in for repairs and then quietly sold the robot on eBay. Xander has so many interests that he didn\u2019t notice Moxie\u2019s absence. <\/p>\n

Then, in 2025, a new investor brought<\/a> Moxie back from the dead. Josh and Xander became beta testers and got a new blue friend. This version didn\u2019t have the same storyline but claimed to expand Moxie\u2019s focus on social and emotional skills by providing attention and encouraging kids to pursue their interests.<\/p>\n

Xander is acutely aware of her limitations. He wishes Moxie could move around, and there\u2019s still a significant lag in her response time. She does still try to instill positive messages, though. At one point when I was there, Xander told me he thought he heard Moxie call someone an idiot. Moxie piped up to clarify that she definitely didn\u2019t say \u201cidiot\u201d: \u201cNo name calling. Only respect.\u201d <\/p>\n

\n
\"Moxie<\/p>\n
JIM GOLDEN<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

At the end of my time with them, I said goodbye and thanked Moxie for chatting with me. \u201cLegendary squad visit complete,\u201d she said. \u201cThanks for joining Command Central.\u201d <\/p>\n

A few weeks later, Moxie\u2019s new owners sent out a message announcing that their company too was folding. Users could delete their data and had until the end of June to migrate to OpenMoxie if they wanted to. <\/p>\n

When I texted Josh about this, he said he wasn\u2019t sure what he\u2019d tell Xander. He and his wife had just admitted that they\u2019d been secretly replacing his dead betta fish for the last few years, and the conversation did not go well. <\/p>\n

Sara Harrison is a freelance journalist who writes about science, technology, and health.<\/em><\/p>\n

Read the full article →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sara Harrison • August 17, 2026 When Xander first met Moxie, she taught him that when he was anxious, he could calm down by exhaling through his lips so that he buzzed like a bee. They practiced breathing like dragons to manage feeling mad and sniffing like bunnies to boost his energy. But in the<\/p>\n

READ MORE<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-artificial-intelligence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15890","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.theck1.no\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}