Smarthome - General question of meaning

You can twist and turn it however you want, people have to be forced to do many things. Because nothing changes on its own. Environmental protection or cars are the best examples. The masses only accept it or start dealing with it when they have no other choice. The same goes for smart homes; eventually, it will come that people are forced to have a minimum standard of automation. Because, in the end, it saves energy and benefits the environment. Every ton of fossil resources not burned is preferable. And intelligent houses with demand-oriented energy supply are better than houses without.

Really smart would be a house that is not programmed, but first watches you for a month in everyday life and then does everything by itself the way you need it. If it does something wrong, there is a no command and you show what you really want. And then it measures your metabolic data and doesn’t make coffee but tea, because it is better for you... Of course, then the no has no effect :)

It may sound like science fiction, but this is roughly how modern smart homes work.

Of course, without metabolic analysis and coercion like tea instead of coffee. But with approaches of self-learning the behavior of the residents and constant and autonomous adaptation of routines within set parameters.

Here, cars are also partly pioneers again, as they have long been learning independently how the driver drives.

Which device learns independently in the KNX Home and then changes the configuration accordingly?

Who said anything about changes to the parameterization? This can remain as it is. Although, of course, there are also means and ways here. But it is more about leaving enough leeway within the parameterization for the higher-level instances.

But to answer your question, KNX offers the appropriate infrastructure and at the management level the devices can incorporate the learning functions. These are then arbitrary logic machines (e.g. the LogicMachine or Savant or others) with the necessary functionality. But even a simple dimmer today autonomously recognizes the connected load and selects the appropriate dimming curve. And if something else is connected, a different one. It does not necessarily have to have KNX on board either.

Here in this thread, it is actually about general questions.

But all others in the house are controlled in such a way that it makes sense weather-wise and saves energy. Not having to reach for the light switch anymore is convenient (if well configured). And with a single press of a button, the night scene could be activated - so that the lighting doesn't go to 100% when you wake up at night but is pleasantly dimmed, especially if you go to bed at different times every day and can't control that by time...

What you write is all understandable and interesting. I don't fundamentally dislike smart homes either. In the end, it is an individual decision. I personally am a fan of simplicity and robustness, especially with such long-lasting objects as a house. All the technology that you don't necessarily need in the end makes things not only expensive but also maintenance-intensive and complicated. I am an IT and technology advocate, but I only use technologies where they make sense and have a great benefit. In the case of smart homes, I am convinced that you tie yourself to a technical ball and chain and the added value (for me) is negligible. As an example, I considered getting a fingerprint sensor for the front door but abandoned the idea because the electric locks are much more susceptible and the benefit for me is not particularly great.